Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]