This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spiders Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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): Mlschoening. Peer reviewers: Saachijain, Nickh994, Salazarjhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of good information here. I edited some of the sentences that were redundant and added some links to other Wikipedia articles. When writing in Wikipedia articles. it is best to speak in the present tense, so I changed some of that as well. Also, I think you could expand a bit more on how prey can tell which is worth hunting and which isn't. Nickh994 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This Wikipedia entry is very well-researched and well-written. It has really informative sections and subsections. The text is fully referenced. I like Reproduction and Mating sections. I found this to be really descriptive and accurate. I found this page really interesting to read. However, I would like to point out some revision suggestions. In the initial leading paragraph, you say that the abdomen is darker gray but in the description section it says that the abdomen is tan. I think researching more about that and making it consistent could be useful for the readers. Additionally, I think you could talk more about the egg laying process in the Reproduction and Mating sections. I added a section on sibling behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saachijain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your entry. Your information is well organized and referenced. I have some suggestions: in the Size section, you should add the average size of the genus or family because I and maybe other people do not know that having a large body size is common in this species or the genus/family. Also, is this species distributed from California to Texas, Texas to Mexico, or California to Mexico? It is confusing that you say southern California to Texas to Mexico, I’m not sure what you mean by that. I like the way you explain some of the spider body parts, I think this helps people to avoid opening new tabs and read about that particular term. I recommend you to change the last photo of you spider because in the text you say it is grey, brown and black, but it seems that that photo is in black and white, but I can’t tell. I change this phrase “these locations make sense because they would be good places for spiders to build a funnel-web” to “these are good locations for this spider to build a funnel-web”, I think this is a better way to explain what you want to say. Salazarjhan (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2020 (CST)

The paragraph "Web" is about "funnel weavers". I find the designation slightly ambiguous. It is linked to the family, Agelenidae. But it seems to hold OK for all spiders that weave funnel webs. Does it? Do all Agelenidae make funnel webs?

I enjoyed very much reading about the funnel weavers and felt informed by it. So I think this is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. However, there is a problem of sorting here. There is a need in Wikipedia to sort the information into a hierarchy of subjects within subjects. Thus, a statement that holds true for all spiders is not made in each article about a spider species. It is only made in the article about spiders, Spider. Sorting the information this way saves a lot of writing and makes it easier for the readers to find the information.

According to this view I think that most of the information here about funnel weavers should be moved to another article, one about funnel weavers or funnel webs in general. But as I wrote above, I cannot say what belongs to Agelenidae, Funnel-web spider and Agelenopsis aperta, respectively.

Moving out these statements to the right articles would make them more valuable to the Wikipedia readers. More readers would find them. I sincerely hope that your teacher recognizes this and do not penalize you for moving stuff out of this article. --Ettrig (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiders that find the best sites for their webs grow to be the largest in size and are considered to have the highest relative fitness."

This sounds plausible. But I am still rather skeptic.

Most obvious: It is not reasonable (or feasible) to state about all the characteristics of the species that it has this characteristic because it provides fitness. But it would be true for a large percentage of the characteristics.

Is there anything specifically important fitnesswide about the placement of the web? What about coloring patterns, leg length, web width, metabolism efficiency, temperature tolerance. Isn't it true that for all these aspects and myriad others, the best confers fitness? So isn't this a statement that should be in a general form in a few articles about evolution and fitness rather than in each article about an organism species?--Ettrig (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueMoonset User: Ian (Wiki Ed) Hello and thank you for considering me for DYK! I have made the changes suggested for GA below and tagged my GA reviewer as well. Mlschoening (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Tylototriton (talk · contribs) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks like an interesting article, will review soon. This is a placeholder, will add comments next weekend hopefully! Tylototriton (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall clear, concise and correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources provided and correctly formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Potential copright violation in lead resolved.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers the important aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images have appropriate licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions now improved and inappropriate image removed.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

@Mlschoening: Interesting article overall, but needs some revision to meet the criteria, see details by section. Tylototriton (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most important: Likely copyright violation detected in lead section, please explain: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Agelenopsis+aperta&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

• "into" Mexico: add detail, northern, central Mexico?

not done Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "genus": add the genus name and link it.

• "rather similar": remove vague "rather".

• "to try to seize": can be shortened to "to seize".

• Last sentence too detailed for lead, simplify.

• Reference: move to appropriate place in article body.

• It seems to me that the venome and its effect on humans should be mentioned in the lead.

• "Spinnerets" is linked twice.

• "quite quickly" - remove vague "quite".

• Are the subheadings really necessary for these short paragraphs?

• Intuitively, I would expect information on colour and size before details on spinnerets.

• Distribution: more details neede here: Where in Mexico? In which climatic regions?

• Information on habitat "the placemen of their webs" should moved to the relevant section; alternatively, "Distribution" and "Habitat" can be merged.

• The first two images need more informative captions: What details do the images show? Can we tell if it's a male or female?

• "As suggested by its name" - should be their - or singular afterwards.

• Introduction phrase stating that this species is a funnel weaver is missing.

• It does not seem approproate or necessary to me to use an image of another species.

• The first paragraph is quite heavy in jargon, simplify, e.g. "More combative spiders have larger territories".

• "Susan Reichert has conducted a significant amount of research" - remove this unjustified detail about author.

• "don’t" -> "do not".

• "little predation on these spiders" - "these" seems inappropriate here.

• "It seems that" - vague, clarifiy.

• This short section can be merged into the previous one i.m.o., without subheadings.

• "they exhibit an aggressive syndrome" - simplify to "they are aggressive".

• Use singular for section title.

• Are subheadings necessary for this short section?

not done Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eratigrena agrostis" - add and link the common name, which is the article title.

not done Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be "omega-agatoxin", with dash and not capitalised.

• "Agatoxin is named" - it's a class of toxins, use plural.

• Use italics for species name.

not done Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bradley book reference: the reference is for a book review, not the actual book, I assume this isn't intended?

• Fix all-caps titles.

• Spell out or initialize first names consistently.

Not consistently done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lee et al." ref under "further reading": should be cited and added to the ref list.

User:Mlschoening, thanks for the revision – and sorry that it took my a while to get back to this. Some final things remaining before I can pass this article, see highlights above and two more remarks:

• References in lead should go to the appropriate places in the article body. No references needed here in lead as the topic is not controversial.
• Lead: "larger than a quarter in size" – quarter of what? Not evident for me as European, make sure using references that are intellegible worldwide, or just give the actual measures.

Tylototriton (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article now meets criteria, thanks for working on this! Tylototriton (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Tylototriton Thank you for reviewing my article. I have made the changes you have suggested and hope it is now suitable for Good Article. Thanks again. Mlschoening (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Tylototriton, I made the changes that you commented were not done from your original review as well as your new comments. Thank you for taking the time to review my article! Mlschoening (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cataplexy article disagrees with this one. The main article says that cataplexy specifically excludes unconsciousness. This article says that cataplexy means unconsciousness. IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is today’s featured article (23/12/20), it is worrying that there’s a basic error here, especially as it relates to the hook in the ‘Main Page ‘Did you know’ section: “Experiments have shown that the cataplectic state is induced by pheromones from the males that are airborne” but the only reference for this section (‘Courtship Rituals’) states the opposite: “However, no study has demonstrated whether pheromones play a role in catalepsis induction” Noureddine et al p 114^[1]. However, I have found one later study that is not referenced here that does seem to prove this;^[2] perhaps there are more. The referencing needs to be updated and the whole section rewritten in a rather more rigorous fashion.BobBadg (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]