Talk:Misumena vatia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eanisman (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ahamed01, Delanieludmir, Davidcho122.

Photo of Mecaphesa

The image

is actually a Mecaphesa, not M. vatia. The abdominal pattern and submarginal carapace bands shown do not occur in M. vatia. For example, consider [Misumena vatia]. Jtlapp2 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Images identification

Colleagues, are you sure that Image:Spider_and_bee_June_2008-1.jpg and Image:Spider_and_mites_May_2008-1.jpg is M. vatia and not some Thomisus sp.? Coiuld anyone check the identity of the spider. My reasons for a doubt: (1) lateral humps on the abdomen, (2) distance from the anterior to posterior medial eyes is bigger than that from the anterior median eyes to the chelicerae. Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The image "File:Misumena vatia Luc Viatour.jpg" does not show a male of Misumena vatia, but a male of a Xysticus species. Koen Van Keer, Belgian Arachnological Society ARABEL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koenvk (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image. Thanks for the suggestion. Dger (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that "File:Goldenrod_Spider.jpg" is not a male, but it is labeled as such. This is based on my observation of matings in my garden. The males I have seen seem smaller and have very different markings. See http://bugguide.net/node/view/464007 for males similar to what I've seen. Also, I've seen other web-spinners drop down and spread out their legs, perhaps to pay out silk when the wind blows. How is this photo an example of it "imitating a flower"? Fuhrmanator (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions: 1. Maybe give some examples of the types of flowers the spider is found on and going into detail about how the color change happens on a specific flower 2. Maybe also talk about how effective the camouflage of the spider is in catching prey 3. Maybe also talk about studies done the these spiders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakami.107 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Misumena vatia, the goldenrod crab spider, can change colors between white and yellow depending on the color of the flowers on which it lives? Source:

5x expanded by Eanisman (talk). Self-nominated at 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

• DYK Check says that the article hasn't been expanded 5x within the last 10 days. Article was at 6,676 bytes when you started improving it, and now is at 22,079. Needs to be 33,380. Can you lengthen it that much? DrThneed (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've expanded the article past 33,380 and cleaned up the references section to the best of my ability. Let me know if I've missed anything or need to add anything else. Thanks!

Eanisman (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Eanisman great, I'll continue the review.DrThneed (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The alternate hook sounds good to me! I'm also new to DYK so I'm not sure if I should go ahead and change the proposed hook to reflect your suggestions. I'll leave it as is for now. Eanisman (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article length and age fine after first review. Copyvio notes problems but that's with a site that repeats Wikipedia info. Eanisman You might consider changing the hook to make it clear that it is an individual spider that can change colour, not that individuals found on different plants are different colours? So I might suggest something like ... that an individual goldenrod crab spider, Misumena vatia, can change color between white and yellow depending on the color of the flowers on which it lives? Looks like nominator's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ required. I have marked this as requiring another editor to review not because it needs a lot of work but because I am a new DYK reviewer seeking a second opinion. I am specifically wanting to check that a) my suggested ALT hook is OK, b) how closely the wording of the hook should match the article text. The information about colour changing in the article is contained in two paragraphs with four sources. So the information is summarised into the hook accurately, as far as I can tell, but the hook itself does not appear in the same or similar form in the article. Is this normal? DrThneed (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Giving a second opinion here. Most of the checks appear to be good, and to answer DrThneed's question: hook facts do not always need to be word-by-word copied from the article, as long as the hook facts are mentioned and the hook's representation of them are accurate. With that said, I think the original hook wording is still better since mentioning the common name and the scientific name seems redundant; a possible solution could be to just present the common name as the name in the hook while giving a pipe link to the scientific name. But the outstanding issue right now is that, according to WP:DYK rules, any sentence that mentions hook facts must have an inline citation even if the relevant citation is already used elsewhere in the article. In this case, the main sentence appears to be These spiders have the unusual ability to match the color of the yellow or white flower with great accuracy. They are able to match with greater accuracy to white flowers, which is currently lacking a footnote. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the nominator is a student editor who is editing as part of a course. As they haven't edited since the end of October, I'm pinging the instructor Agelaia and the relevant Wiki Ed staff (Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed)) to see if the student can be contacted regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I have emailed the instructor and asked them to let the student know about the follow-up question. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Narutolovehinata5, sorry for the delayed response. I've added the appropriate inline citation and proposed an alternative hook including the piped link. Eanisman (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the goldenrod crab spider can change colors between white and yellow depending on the color of the flowers on which it lives? Source:

• Is this ready for approval? Pinging DrThneed and Narutolovehinata5. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It's good with me, but as Narutolovehinata5 suggested an alternative hook, it's probably good if they approve the ALT. DrThneed (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not have access to the journal that's used as a citation, so I am assuming good faith on its reliability. As there are no remaining issues found by me or DrThneed, this should be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, and tagged one paragraph that lacks any cite per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I've updated the paragraph with the appropriate citations! -Eanisman (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick per Narutolovehinata5's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Refs

I reviewed this for DYK, but regardless of whether you can lengthen it as required there are some minor reference issues to tidy up. The references 7 and 11 are the same, and so are refs 2 and 21. For the URL references you should give the name of the website as well as the just the link, and some of the books are missing information like publication date, publisher, etc.DrThneed (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ahamed01 (talk)I saw that there was a mention of having the same references, so I deleted the duplicated references. Furthermore, I made some tiny edits that would help with clarity. This was a well written Wikipedia page. The information was incredibly thorough and provided a lot of insight into the spider at hand. I think this is a great example of a resource for good content. One of the general guidelines about a good Wikipedia page was that it was to have illustrations. There were pictures of flowers, and I wonder if it would be better to solely focus on the spider at hand. When observing the references this Wikipedia page provided, I noted that there were over 10 scholarly works used; therefore, I would say that this Wikipedia page has accurate information. —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

delanieludmir (talk)Emma’s Wikipedia age for Misumena vatia was very informative and had many categories of information. I particularly liked that she had short paragraphs, which made it easier to read through. The main edits I made were to the headers and sub-headers. In the description section, I added a sub-heading for the description of the spider’s coloration called “color”. I also moved part of the description in order to combine all the sentences describing the spider’s coloration. Furthermore, I changed the “home range” section into a subheading since it fits into habitat and distribution. Finally, I changed a subheading from “adult” to “hunting patterns” since it better depicted the information provided in that section. —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions and Edits

This was a very well-written article with extensive coverage on many important sections. It also has a decent amount of images to help accompany the information. I made a few grammatical corrections. I also suggest connecting details under sections to allow a better flow of information instead keeping a resemblance to bullet points. I moved the video of the spider attacking the bee to the hunting behavior because it seemed the placement was more in line with that section. I also added a sub-header to bites with human and animals to specify a section on the venom details of the spider. Overall, all the information had proper references and the article was very informative.