Talk:Demodex injai/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Samoht27 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Relativity (talk · contribs) 22:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. I'll be adding comments under the sections below, and let me know if you have any comments or concerns. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig's Assessment: 9.1%
Note that I will also look for close paraphrasing during the source spot check.

Source spot check

• 1 — good
• 3 — good, but is this supposed to be "Todays" or "Today's"?
• 5 —good
• 6 —from a peer-reviewed journal, supports the article's info, no DOI? Also, for both this source and source #5, do we have the original source rather than ResearchGate per Wikipedia:ACADREP?
  • I could not find a DOI, but I was able to find a direct link; which I added to the citation. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding that, it works now. Is there a link like this for Source #5? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• 10 — (accessed through TWL) There is no mention of D. injai in the paper at all (except for a citation to an article about it), and I don't see where the article supports the sentence it's citing. Where did you see that bit of information?
  • It mentions the mites as being similar, if i'm extrapolating too much I can remove the claim all-together, sorry.-Samoht27 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Samoht27: Where is the sentence that says the mites are similar exactly? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• 14 — is there a link to this article that is not a PDF?
  • There's a ResearchGate link, but I think the PDF would be preferable.-Samoht27 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, the PDF is fine. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• 15 — I don't see where the source says anything about kidney and liver damage?
  • Sorry I haven't been as active in this review as I should have been! With this one I think it is a case of me misplacing something that should be cited in the next sentence over -Samoht27 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 17 — I can't access this source, but I found the website for it:
  • I added the link, thank you!-Samoht27 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• 18 — I would probably reword "Despite these differences, infestations of D. injai can be treated the same as any other instance of demodicosis." to "Despite these differences, infestations of D. injai can be treated the same as instances of demodicosis caused by D. canis." to be more inline with the source. Where does is "Demodicosis primarily driven by an infestation of D. injai differs significantly from the most prevalent form of demodicosis." supported in this source? Otherwise it's good.
  • I applied the suggested rewording with the former; with the latter I think it might be best to just remove this sentence entirely because it arguably provides undue weight to the differences listed in the source. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• 21 — good

Prose comments

• D. injai was first described in the 1990s, and was assumed to be a subspecies of D. canis. — you can elaborate further with this. According to the article cited, it was first described on a Scottish Terrier by Hillier and Desch in 1997. The article continues to talk about several other times it was mentioned in published works before being officially described in 2003. Since the "taxonomy" section of the article is particularly short, I would add this information to it.
• The two sentences starting with D. injai was first described... and In 2003, it was proposed by Clifford... are both cited to the same source. You can remove the source from the first sentence as the one attached to the second sentence already covers both of them.
• This classification was based solely on morphology and conjecture — link to Morphology (biology)
• D. injai is a long-bodied Demodex mite. The species is the largest Demodex mite found in carnivores. — I suggest grouping these two sentences together to form "D. injai is a long-bodied Demodex mite,^[3] the largest Demodex mite found in carnivores.^[4]" since otherwise there are three consecutive short sentences in that paragraph, which reads as clunky.
• The spacing of legs along the podosoma is typical — According to the article cited, the spacing of legs along the podosoma is "uniform", not typical. Is there some way to reword this to still be accurate?
  • Hello! Thanks for this feedback! To provide some explanation for the original wording: I used the term "typical" because uniform leg spacing is what is usually seen in most Demodex. In retrospect, this was probably too technical and assumed a familarity with Demodex mites that really shouldn't be expected from all readers. I still feel as though it's important to mention since the legs being evenly spaced isn't a distinct feature of this mite.-Samoht27 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think the new wording works well and solves the problem. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Larva of the species are six-legged, and eventually develop into eight-legged nymphs after several molts — change to larvae
• A study of Polish specimens in 2008 concluded that males of the species ranged from 309 to 411 µm in length, and females ranged from 282 to 396 µm long. — remove "long" for redundancy
  • Should I add customary units? The closest customary units to get converted from micrometers is inches, and each micrometer is well below 1/10,000th of an inch; so I don't think it would be that useful to have as a reference, but usually customary units are provided on enwiki.-Samoht27 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, you don't need to add customary units per MOS:CONVERSIONS, which says to add a unit conversion for different units for the same quantity (emphasis mine) ... in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• The distribution section is incredibly short, is it possible to move this information elsewhere or expand upon it somehow? Otherwise I don't see the point of having a section with only one sentence in it.
• D. injai is a parasitic mite living inside the hair follicles of canines.^[1] — you can remove the citation from this sentence since the same citation appears just a bit down the line.
• Despite the species being most common in domestic canines,^[1] infestations of the species are also known to occur in wild canines; primarily the golden jackal.— I would reword this to "Despite being most common in domestic canines,^[1] infestations are also known to occur in wild canines, primarily the golden jackal." to fix the incorrect semicolon and remove the usage of "the species" since it's already previously mentioned and it will be assumed to mean the species.
• The species is rarely ever found alone, and is almost always found among other related species of hair follicle parasites. — you can remove "ever" and the comma
• Though the species is only confirmed to live in dermal tissue, an unclassified Venezuelan mite theorized to be a subspecies of D. injai is present on the outer sections of the skin—to make this a little clearer to people unfamiliar with the subject, I would change "to live in dermal tissue" to "to live within dermal tissue" and change "outer sections of the skin" to "exterior layers of the skin".
• Development from egg to adult occurs over the course of a cycle lasting approximately 20 to 35 days. The cycle occurs in its entirety within the glands infested by the mite. — this would probably belong better in the "Description" section
• also known as red mange or demodectic mange—don't think this is needed, if anyone's wondering what demodicosis is or alternative nicknames for it, they can just look at the article
• Demodicosis is characterized by a—remove "a"
• Historically, submerging a dog in motor oil was a common pseudoscientific treatment for demodicosis; however, this practice risks kidney and liver damage to the dog being bathed, while also failing to treat mange, and is discouraged by veterinarians.— try rewording the part after the semicolon to "however, this practice risks kidney and liver damage and fails to treat mange, and is therefore discouraged by veterinarians." to make it a little tighter
  • I incorporated some aspects of this wording, but I still think its useful to seperate the "failing to treat mange" part being that it is a different topic from the negative effects of the practice in regards to the dogs organs.-Samoht27 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Your new wording works, and I agree with the separation. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• D. injai is observed to infest older adults in a manner uncommonly seen with most instances of demodicosis. Infestations of D. injai are also distinguished by the presence of additional symptoms not typically associated with Demodicosis. — is demodicosis capitalized or not? I don't believe it should be capitalized, but this should remain consistent
• These include extremely greasy fur due to seborrhea, ulcers, hematic crusts, and long-term bleeding. — This sentence isn't the most clear—is the fur greasy because of seborrhea, ulcers, hematic crusts, and long-term bleeding, or are additional symptoms only associated with D. injai ulcers, hematic crusts, long-term bleeding, and extremely greasy fur due to seborrhea? Additionally, you should clarify what hematic crusts are for those unfamiliar with the term
  • Does this phrasing suffice? "These include extremely greasy fur as a result of seborrhea; ulcers, hematic crusts (more commonly known as scabs), and long-term bleeding." -Samoht27 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am aware that there is a difference between hematic crusts and scabs, however hematic crusts are what would colloquially be called "scabs" by most people, even if they are technically distinct. I believe for the sake of making this concept familiar with the general audience this would service without compromising accuracy. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Try rewording it to "These include ulcers, hematic crusts (more commonly known as scabs), long-term bleeding, and extremely greasy fur as a result of seborrhea." Thanks for the clarification on scabs. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  This seems good, made an edit to this wording. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• D. injai caused — hyphenate to D. injai-caused
• the two species has never been observed simultaneously using the same dog as a host — has --> have
• The opithosoma of D. injai is significantly longer and wider than similar species. — did you mean "opisthosoma"?
• Demodex injai is a species of parasitic mite of the Demodex genus that infests hair follicles of mammals of the Canis genus. — switch to "Demodex injai is a species of parasitic mite of the genus Demodex that infests hair follicles of mammals of the genus Canis." (if you read research paper, this is typically how the genus is listed, I had to double-check to make sure this was true)
• another spur is present at the legs midpoint — legs --> leg's

@Samoht27: Are you interested in continuing this review, or should this be closed without promotion? Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I am interested, thank you for reminding me. -Samoht27 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Relativity Hello! I have responded to some previous parts of this review and are awaiting your response. I am sorry for my inactivity earlier! -Samoht27 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Samoht27: Seems like all the prose checks out. My only standing query is the comment I added for source #6. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)