Talk:Philoponella oweni

Untitled

This article was created by the bot Qbugbot. For more information, see User:Qbugbot/info. For questions and comments, leave a message at User:Qbugbot/talk.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Katherine.handley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction on family

The very first start says that this species is an orb-web spider, which is linked to Orb-weaver spider. That article says that Orb-weaver spider is a name for the family Araneidae, which is also linked to this article. Yet the same sentence says the species belongs to the Uloboridae family. This means that the article says that the species belongs to two different families. But that is not possible. I suspect that the intention is to say that these spiders weave webs of the orb type. Anyway, something must be changed here. --Ettrig (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ettrig: fixed. (At one time, Orbiculariae was considered to be a natural group, and could be called "orb-web spiders", but it's now generally agreed that spiders making cribellate and non-cribellate orb-webs do not form a clade.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes but: It is indeed fixed. But this article is the target of a university course project. My intention is to help the students learn. Could you consider giving them some more time to respond? (On the other hand this class has been rather unresponsive so far.) Anyway, if I didn't know about these students I would have acted rather differently. --Ettrig (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, some of the articles being worked on by this course project will need extensive re-working later. Odd wording and strange sectioning I'm willing to leave, but actual errors and incorrect links I'm not. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Now when you point it out, I agree that errors should be corrected as soon as possible. --Ettrig (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions

I added hyperlinks to locations and certain terms, as well as made grammatical changes in sentence structure and clarity. A couple suggestions include reformatting the last paragraph in the subheading parasitism to exclude phrasing such as "in this study" and just reporting the findings, as well as potentially combining all three subheadings in the Web heading because two of them are only one sentence long. Lilygreenberg (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I especially liked the description of their semi-sociality; it was well written, clear, and interesting. I think this page could benefit from the addition of some photographs, if possible. I think a map of the distribution would be especially helpful. I added some hyperlinks to things like: cribellate, wasps, parasitism, and more. The most significant change that I made was changing some of the wording in the “Enemies” section, as it referred heavily to specific researchers and research, which felt out of place on Wikipedia. This section still might require a bit more work by the primary author to further improve its clarity and conciseness, but it was difficult for me to make some of these edits without having read the study they kept referring to.

juliaskittle (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

More Suggestions

This article is well researched and well organized. It is very thorough and provides lots of interesting details. There are a few suggestions I'd like to make:

• There is an issue with "wordiness." There are some sentences in the piece that don't really say anything of value. I've pointed some out to you in invisible comments- take a look to see what I mean and if you think they can be improved or should just be removed.
• Try to avoid starting sentences with "this." It's a vague term that usually means the two sentences could be just be joined together to be more concise.
• A big issue is how experimental research is described. If the statistics you are citing are from a reputable source, to be concise I would recommend just stating the facts from the article, instead of saying "it has been experimentally shown that..." or similar wordy statements. This is the feedback I got from my TA and I found it improved my article drastically when I reworded those lines.

In general, I rearranged some of the sentences to the best of my ability without altering their meaning and flagged those I don't have the expertise to fix up. If you have questions about any of my edits please let me know! -Eanisman (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)