Talk:Acanthocephala
The body of this is written in a pretty awkward manner - I'll try to come back and clean this up later if nobody beats me to it.
Ok, I've started cleaning this up, it's kinda mixed up. work in progress...
There, any comments? Anilocra 14:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Anilocra 16:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Common name
The article refers to a common name (in the Proboscis section), but I don't see a common name mentioned, only the scientific name... Cryptoid 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Article assessment
Article is good, but lacks any inline citations. With inline citations and a slight expansion on the lead, this article is B quality. J. Hall • (Talk) 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've bumped the importance up to mid; it's a phylum, though a fairly minor and uncertain one so I think mid importance is high enough. Richard001 (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to step on any toes by editing outside by area of expertise, but I think some of the language in the "Brain-jacking" section should be revised. As is, it seems to indicate that the worm(s) consciously choose to manipulate the crustacean host's behavior to achieve a desired effect, namely transmission to the duck through consumption. Statements such as these fuel the argument that these worms "could never have evolved such a complex behavior" and leads to dozens of flame wars on Intelligent Design forums. I believe it would be better to rephrase these statements to avoid any implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.32.27 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)