Talk:Portia africana

Portia africana was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 24, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tree of life#Science|tree of life]] The anchor (#Science) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Redundant

the information is about the genus, not this specific species, and should therefore be deleted or moved to Portia (genus). Nice style, though :) --Sarefo 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of NINE countries in the first sentence. This should be abbreviated to a general description such as most of central Africa. --Ettrig (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portia africana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Smartse (talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smartse, sorry for the delay. I found a new source 2 days ago, and this shows that Portia africana is very unusual. I've name significant changes to Tactics used by Portia africana, and there be more. In the morning I'll improve "Ecology". I suggest we defer the lead until the rest of stable. --Philcha (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smartse. I've improve "Ecology", I think. Now I think the article needs a more radical approach, as P. africana doesn't fit the model used by Portia fimbriata, Portia labiata and Portia schultzi. I've copied the article to User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2 and will tell you when I'm ready - hopefully within 2 days. At that point I'll ask to comment on the subpage, to avoid confusing transitional stages in main space. Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smartse. I've done (IMO ?) the main text at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2. On Sun 12 Nov I'll do the lead there. --Philcha (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smartse. I've done the lead at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2, and checked links and DABs at present. Over to you, in the Sandbox. --Philcha (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the differences between the sandbox and mainspace article are? It would be easier to merge the two and only work on the mainspace one. I'll wait to hear from you before doing so. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SmartArse. I've copies from the sandox to the article. The main change is that P. africana′s collective hunting now at the top, rather than after the "standard" hunting as in e.g. Portia fimbriata. The new order emphasises how different P. africana′s hunting is. I restored "assassin bugs ..." in "Hunting ...", as it gives multiple benefits: shows major threats to P. africana (assassin bugs); is gives more impact than in a "Ecology" section; shows how this collective hunting seems to be all the rage in Kenya; and I hope readers will enjoy the Danse Macabre, or at least find it memorable - and the new lead gives a note about the assassin bugs, but with less details and without names. I like your other edits, many thanks. --Philcha (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've merged them together now and will probably have time to look over the rest tomorrow. SmartSE (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the merge. I look forward to your comments. 04:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

Currently the images: File:Salticid_overview_06.png, File:Salticid_jumping_takeoff_n2.png and File:Salticid_jumping_takeoff_n2.png are all in the .png format. I noticed that you are the author of the images, so wondered if you might have copies of the files that you can save as .svg - these are much better for diagrams as they scale infinitely and stay crisp. It isn't necessary for a GA, but it would look better. SmartSE (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the files. Which tool do you suggest? --Philcha (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you draw them in the first place? (I have some experience of creating and uploading SVG files, e.g. File:Alternation_of_generations.svg.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined it on paper, scanned it, and use an images editor to covert to .jpg and colour. Some times I use the editor from the start. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape is the easiest free way to create .svg but you need to draw them using that in the first place rather than draw + scan. Don't worry about it if that's the case. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although there are some tools which attempt to produce vector graphics from bit map images, I haven't had much success with them, so you can only get SVG if you start that way. I'm not entirely sure that SVG is always better for diagrams; sometimes the bit map renderings by the Wikimedia software don't seem all that good... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't essential, but have you thought of getting a range map made? It makes the distribution of a species much easier to understand. User:Obsidian Soul is open to requests if you can give precise details (just realised a slight problem with this, but it belongs below). Similarly, have you tried contacting Robert Jackson to see if he might be willing to release some images under a creative commons licence? It would really improve the article. His email is here. (I can if you don't want to). SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for adivise at WP's Held page,but so far got nothing. But asking Jackson is an great idea, I'll do it now! --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Some parts are unclear:

"Around Kimumu" - in which country is Kimumu?
- Your'e right - thanks. Now "In Kenya's Kimumu region, a savanna area ..." --Philcha (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While most aggregations of P. africana there include adult and also juvenile of all stages, most groups consist only of small juveniles." I tried to copy edit this but couldn't make it make sense - can you reword this?
- My difficulty is that it's clear to me /-) In summary, mature P. africana mainly invade other spiders' webs, using tactics similar to those of Portia fimbriata; but small immatures gang up on prey until one bites the prey and then feed, and sometimes shares the food. Does that suggest anything to you. --Philcha (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok that makes sense but what I find confusing in the text above is what the difference between an aggregation and a group is? They sound like the same thing to me, so them consisting of different ages spiders seems wrong. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please have a look at the nest comment, about "Tactics specific to Portia africana" gives readers a full picture. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the assasin bug info from the hunting section as it is covered in ecology and is better covered there.
- As far as I can see, the article currently uses both. IMO the text in "Tactics specific to Portia africana" gives readers a full pictures: the little cities built by the social jumping spiders; Portia africana hunting in the cities; 2-3 Nagusta hunt Portia africana (more social hunting!); and Scipinnia repax preys on P. africana in a similar way but alone, and also preys on Nagusta. The text in "Ecology" duplication, but in the context of threats to P. africana rather than hunting by P. africana, which I think is OK. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I must have not saved it or something - I still think it would be best if the info was only in the ecology section and the hunting section just dealt with how it hunts, rather than is hunted.
    - I've updated the URL to point to publisher Taylor & Francis. There, the abstract uses "aggregation", and the rest is behind a paywall which I can't enter. The source for http://www.insectscience.org/10.82/i1536-2442-10-82.pdf "Specialized prey selection behavior of two East African assassin bugs, Scipinnia repax and Nagusta sp. that prey on social jumping spiders" points to a PDF which is currently free. Ironically, the abstract of the PDF gives enough for our article. The PDF doesn't use "aggregation" but writes, "near the shoreline of Lake Victoria", Portia africana, an araneophagic salticid that often invades the same nest complexes" which "social jumping spiders" build, complexes". So I avoid "aggregation" when using the PDF. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still very strongly prefer to keep "2-3 Nagusta hunt Portia africana ..." up front, so that readers get the full picture. Splitting the info into 2 parts a few section apart will make it harder to read, and some readers won't bother. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cursorial is an obscure word - can it be changed to something that the general reader is likely to know e.g. in "In contrast, other cursorial spiders generally have difficulty moving on webs,"
- "Cursorial" appears all over the article, and is the standard term in the literature. So readers will have to remember it. The 1st use is at "Hunting and feeding", and defines the term. I'm adding a citation for the definition. --Philcha (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is correct to use "Portia′s". I have tried to reword sentences to remove these where possible.
- I'm not sure about your copyedits, but no need for discussion. There are good copyediters who clean things well, and I gave User:Rjwilmsi a Barnstar for all the help. --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll ask Stemonitis as they always seem to know about things like this. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "Occasionally a Portia is killed or injured while pursuing prey up to twice..." section hidden?
- The source covers P. fimbriata, P. labiata and P. schuntzi, but not P. africana. I've left the hidden text as a reminder in case a source appears - as we found found a lot of content about P. africana recently. Call me cautious or worse, I'd have to plead guilty. |-D --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The spider lies head down, and often slides down 20 to 30 millimetres (0.79 to 1.18 in) during moulting" what do you mean by "slides down"?
- Just what it says. IIRC the source said 1 specimen slid so far down that it had a struggle to get out of the discarded skin - and at that point the new skin is soft and the spider is vulnerable. --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still can't quite picture what they do from the text - what are they sliding down? SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - When ready to lay eggs, the female attaches a silk line to a leaf and then extends the line by paying out more silk, and moults. While the new skin is still soft, she makes 1 or more silk bags into which she lays the eggs. During this process, the female usually slips down a little. --Philcha (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The species has also been named Cocalus africana (Thorell, 1893) and Neccocalus africana (Roewer, 1964), and finally P. africana." When did it become P. africana?
- Goood point. Now "finally P. africana since 1978" with cites to [1] mid-2011]. --Philcha (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(More to come later) SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all of my copy editing done for now.

One problem I noticed is that the list of countries in the lead doesn't include Kenya, but then you have references mentioning it is found in Kenya. I think it would be better to move this all into a separate section on distribution and just say something like sub-Saharan Africa in the lead. SmartSE (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that, I think the only part of WP:GA? not met is 1 (b) regarding structure. I can't find any example spider articles, but if you look at the other GA articles here you should get some ideas of better ways to structure it. Normally for example, taxonomy comes first (not really sure why), then description etc. The senses part should probably come under description. If you can have a go with that then I'll come back for another look. And sorry it took a while to get back here, I'm too easily distracted by other things! SmartSE (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote all the GAs about inveterate phyla. And I'm an other butterfly brain! --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I leave taxonomy to the end, as reneral readers won't understand "taxonomy", but I'll gradually include these terms, see e.g. Portia fimbriata. --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed that this is how it is done in the other Portia GAs you've written, but I think that having a standardised format is an important part of being a GA. Across all the GA/FA species articles it's standard to include taxonomy first and to have a section on distribution. If a reader can't understand it, then they can skip it, but I think it is better to be consistent across all our articles. SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said, "Normally ... taxonomy comes first (not really sure why) - and I also see no reason for taxonomy being first. As I've said before, I want to help the general reader first. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And P. african′s co-operative hunting is, so far, unique. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on this review? At two months, this should be on its way to being wrapped up already, yet comments stopped a month back. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just to be clear, the only thing that needs changing is the layout and the lead to comply with WP:MOS. SmartSE (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]