Talk:Cyrtophora citricola/GA1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this one. It may take me several days to post my first comments. MeegsC (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi M.s.w.lee. Given that this appears to have been a class project, I'll post a few initial comments to make sure you are still planning to work on the article. Please strike out these issues once you've had the chance to fix them. I've got this page on my watchlist, but feel free to ping me if you have any questions.
The lede should summarize the major points of the article. This one is a bit skimpy, and should be expanded accordingly.Take a look at redback spider, one of Wikipedia's FA-level articles, or the recently-promoted Pholcus phalangioides. I'd suggest that you structure this article similarly. You obviously won't need all of those sections (this spider, for instance, isn't seriously venomous, so you don't need a huge section about venom, and it's not as culturally important as that one is), but it would be good to be consistent where possible with other spider articles.All measurements should be in imperial as well as metric units. The {{convert}} template is a great one to use here. Ping me if you're not sure how to use it.Fully spell out the genus name at the first occurrence in each section; you can then use abbreviations elsewhere within that section. Also the convention is to put between the "." and the species name in the wikitext, e.g. "C. citricola", to avoid ending a line with something like "C.". This goes for other species (like Argyrodes argyrodes) as well.How can someone discover a species posthumously?The spider was later moved from the genus Aranea genus to Cyrtophora. I think the second "genus" is in the wrong place.There's a bad character in ref 1, no title listed for ref 19, and the journal name is missing from ref 30.
Once you've indicated that you're still around to make necessary improvements, I'll continue with my review. MeegsC (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC. Thank you for reviewing this article. I will get started on these comments and let you know when I work through all of them!M.s.w.lee (talk)
Hi MeegsC. I looked at the references, and deleted ref 19, and recited it under a different reference that provided the same information. I also added the journal for ref 30. I was having trouble seeing the bad character in ref 1, but I changed the character in ref 2 that said character replacement was that the ref that needed to be edited? M.s.w.lee (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC. I hope you are doing well. I have gone through and reviewed the comments you have given me and edited the structure of the article to resemble the structure of the redback spider. I also have gone back and expanded the lede to summarize the unique aspects of the spider. Could you please give me further suggestions to improve the lede and structure. Thank you for your time in advance. M.s.w.lee (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
M.s.w.lee, I am so sorry – somehow, I lost track of this one! Anyway, I'm back, and will finish this up as quickly as I can. Let me start by saying you have a nicely informative article here, with lots of good detail about this spider. And your structure looks pretty good too. That said, there are some issues that could use sorting out. I've listed those below.
A few general comments first.
Section headers should be "sentence case". That means that only the first word is capitalized. There are a few that need fixing.Footnotes should always be in numerical order in in-line citations. That means ref 7 should come before ref 8, for example. They're out of order in a few cases here.Be sure to convert all measurements. That includes temperatures. You can use the parameter
Taxonomy
[edit]You've done a great job here. I did some copyediting; I wove your very short first paragraph into the one that followed it, and eliminated some redundant wording. Please check to make sure I didn't inadvertantly change the meaning of anything.Link patella, tibia and femur. I'd suggest linking all three to Spider#Body plan as this clearly shows their location on spiders.What's a "bent-back eye pattern"? Without a picture or explanation, this is a mystery. And is this a family trait, or a genus trait? You've been talking about genera here.Link cephalic.You need a citation to cover the last three sentences of this paragraph (about webs and legs and "bent-back eyes").Are there multiple subspecies? You mention only the one, but there are only subspecies if there are at least two. All should be listed here. Otherwise, if there are no longer thought to be subspecies, this sentence should be eliminated.
Phylogeny
[edit]Whew! This paragraph is hard work! There are a number of very technical terms here that need linking or explaining: clade, mesal, exoskeleton, "derived araneids", aciniform brushes, sexual dimorphism, embolus.Spiders are a part of a clade, not apart – unless they're not in that clade at all, then they're apart. ;)
Description
[edit]In the lede and in the taxonomy section, you mention sexual dimorphism, and in the lede you mention size differences. Those facts should both be mentioned here."Cyrtophora citricola is a medium brown color, however, there are darker brown spots on the abdomen." If you said "Cyrtophora citricola is medium brown with darker brown spots on the abdomen.", you've said the same thing in a lot fewer words.Do the spiders sometimes have spots of different colors? You say they're dark brown, but the picture shows some black spiders with white spots.You say females can vary in their coloring. Do you mean they come in a range of colors? Or can they physically change their color depending on their background, like some spiders can?Are they round? Flat? Which legs are longest? What is their eye arrangement like: one row or two? Which set is largest?Link or explain trichobothria, bifurcation, tubercles. Check wiktionary if there is no appropriate article on WP.Are there similar species this could be confused with?The sentences about when they're active should move into the behavior section.
More to come. MeegsC (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey MeegsC. No worries! I will get started on these comments and let you know when I am done. M.s.w.lee (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey MeegsC, quick question. In regards to the linking phylogeny terms, I saw sexual dimorphism needed more explaining or a link. I have already linked it in the introduction section, should I explain the term here instead? M.s.w.lee (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's Manual of Style says you shouldn't introduce anything in the lede that isn't then presented in the main body of the article. Generally, you should summarize in the lede, and then expand in the article. It's okay to link in both places; some people will just read the lede, so the links should be there to help their comprehension. For those that explore further, linking in the article allows them to enhance their understanding without having to page back up to the lede.
Hey MeegsC, hope you are doing well. I have finished revising the article according to your comments and am ready for more comments. Best M.s.w.lee (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@M.s.w.lee and MeegsC: Is this nomination still ongoing? Urve 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Urve, I've been doing a bit of copyediting on it the article this week, in an attempt to finish up. RL got a bit crazy. MeegsC (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Urve, as soon as MeegsC has more comments, I will be back on it. M.s.w.lee (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Review has been abandoned
[edit]It has been over two months since MeegsC has posted to this review, and they have not responded to two requests for them to return posted to their talk page. M.s.w.lee has responded to a talk-page ping that they are still interested in pursuing this nomination. Accordingly, I am returning the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority; the next review will take place on a different page from this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)