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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 01:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Relativity (talk · contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Hey, I'll be reviewing this against the good article criteria. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ping me here or contact me on my talk page. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: I am not going to be able to finish this GA review because I will be on vacation for about two months. I'll have to ask a second opinion. Apologies for the inconvenience. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: No problem. Thank you all your work so far. simongraham (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been long enough; I'll provide a second opinion. Some notes to follow! Reconrabbit 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham, I think the only thing left to do is checking the available online sources. I'll try to figure out access tonight (in about 12 hours unfortunately since my work is somewhat limiting with library access in this respect). Reconrabbit 11:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29.1% on Earwig's, and it doesn't have to do with anything really in the text. I'll hold off on clearing this criteria until I do the source spot check.

• Jason A. Dunlop's source— States that Simon's original identification of Evarcha praeclara was referenced from 1906, not 1901? All the other sources say 1901 (or 1902) and the statement on South Sudan political borders checks out, so Y on that part but I'm still confused here.
  • That is a good point. Would you prefer I remove the year from the article, state that it is ambiguous or change the source to one of the others?
    • Given the ambiguity between sources, I would use a date range... but if 1901 is the most frequently used year, stick with that. I run into similar issues with historical accounts.
      • It seems there are many different examples that Simon described, but that this is a specific reference to the 1906 description. Corrected and added Simon's article to the sources.
• Christian Kropf and Theo Blick's source— Clearly referring to a wide array of taxonomic designations, which includes Prószyński's 2018 work on Evarcha, though not directly referencing this species. Y Appropriately used along with the World Spider Catalog [6] source.
• Wayne P. Maddison's 2015 source— This is a very thorough source. Shouldn't the page numbers on [14] be 278 and 280, not 248 and 280? 250 also provides some info on the subtribe/tribe. Other than the page mixup Y
  • Page 248 is the narrative while pages 275ff are more a list. I am happy to add 278 to the list. Would you like me to also add any of the other pages from the latter pages?
    • I thought the narrative was on 250. Either way it doesn't hurt to provide more page numbers if they're all relevant to the text; it doesn't take up space in prose.
      • Very good point. Added.
• Jerzy Prószyński's 2017 source— Y clear reflection of the source.
• The World Spider Catalog Source— Y Used appropriately in combination with Kropf and Blick source. Verifies 2003 date.
• Daniela C. Rößler, Massimo De Agrò, Elia Biundo, and Paul S. Shamble's source— I'm not seeing where it discusses E. praeclara here? The source is describing Evarcha arcuata, and it even says it lives in dry grassland, not forest.
  • It does not discuss the species but is rather a more general comment on the genus. Would you rather I removed it?
    • My concern is that only the statement on nests constructed of webs (silk) is supported by the source, and not that "Unlike some other species in the genus, Evarcha praeclara has been identified in a wide range of environments" or "it lives in forests". If these statements are better supported by Prószyński 2003 and/or Logunov, Marusik & Mozaffarian 2001, recommend re-using these sources in the paragraph.
      • Good point. It is supported by Prószyński 2003, which is referenced in the following sentence. I have removed Rößler, De Agrò, Biundo, Elia & Shamble 2021 as the statement relates to a related but different spider.
• Konrad Wiśniewski's source— Haven't been able to read past the abstract, but did this spider out of 500 make Wesołowska prolific? I feel like that speaks for itself; maybe it doesn't need to be stated in this article that the arachnologist who described the species was prolific.
  • A good point. Reworded. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't take too long...

File:Evarcha michailovi female (cropped).jpg— Image looks good and is tagged appropriately. Unfortunately, it's not the actual Evarcha praeclara itself. I tried to find a picture of praeclara, but couldn't find one that wasn't under a non-free license.

Still working on adding more, but feel free to address these if you'd like...

• Lead— examples found may may be a— "may may"?
  • Amended.
• Lead— The African male spiders and Asian female spiders— wait, I'm confused. So, are these both from the same species? Do the African spiders live in Africa and do the Asian spiders live in Asia?
  • Good spot. I have reworded this so hopefully it is clearer.
• Lead— The spider's copulatory organs are distinctive.— distinctive in what way?
  • Clarified.
• Taxonomy— which had first circumscribed by— add "been" after "had"
  • Added.
• Taxonomy— There are some duplicate links in this section, namely the links to species, Eugène Simon, and Jerzy Prószyński. I recommend using this tool to highlight duplicate links.
  • Thank you. Links removed.
• Taxonomy— It is closely related to the genera Hyllus and Plexippus. and Analysis of protein-coding genes showed it— what is? The spider? The clade Saltafresia? There were many, many things before that sentence, and I'm not sure what it's referring to.
  • Moved to higher-up in the paragraph so it is clearer.
• Description— is a small, light-coloured spider The spider's body is— Add a period after the first "spider"
  • Added.
• Description— They have many long brown spines and greyish and brown hairs.— This line is confusing. I'm not sure if the spines are grey and brown or brown combined with grey or how "greyish" would even look like. Suggest rewording.
  • Rephrased.
• Description— The third pair of legs is longest.— Third pair from the back, or the front?
  • Clarified.
• Description— The African examples differ in their design.—...from what? The Asian examples?
  • Rephrased.
• Description— I suggest moving the paragraphs that starts with The female is larger than the male and The female abdomen above the paragraph that starts with The African examples differ in their design so readers can read about the description of the male type of the spider and then immediately read about the female type afterwards.
  • Moved.
• Description— of dense short white hairs.— switch "dense" and "short"
  • Switched.
• Description— but all examples have tufts of dark hair— "all examples"— does that include just the female spiders or all of the spiders?
  • Reworded.
• Behaviour and Habitat— While some other species live in the tree canopy,— other species of spiders, Evarcha, or just all species?
  • Clarified.
• Behaviour and Habitat— tree litter— I'm not entirely sure what "tree litter" is. Could that be clarified?
  • Linked.
• Behaviour and Habitat— one female was seen in willow tree litter— suggest linking willow
  • Linked.
• Behaviour and Habitat— Evarcha spiders hunt by ambushing their prey— do we know what kind of prey?
  • Added.
• Bibliography section— Wikilink Jerzy Prószyński in his 1984 source and un-wikilink him in his 2003 source
  • Moved. simongraham (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The top paragraph of the article states that the species was identified in 1901, but the body says it was described in 1890. Only much later is it clarified that the identification of the specific species in Sudan was in 1901 (and it was misidentified at the time). Could be clarified either in the top paragraph that it was initially identified as part of Mogrus or in taxonomy that the first (mis)identified type specimen(?) was in 1901.
  • I have rewritten the first paragraph to, hopefully, make that clearer. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No other notes on the prose, it's all been addressed by Relativity, though I personally prefer to omit "For example" and just state examples on their own without the qualifier.
  • Removed. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm trying to get access to the online sources but having trouble right now working though my institution.
• I'm also going to add that according to the GA criteria, the language of the article is neutral and there has been no edit warring in this article's history.
  • Thank you. Please tell me if there are any other issues. simongraham (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reconrabbit: Excellent points. Please see my responses above. simongraham (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reconrabbit: Thank you. I believe that is everything. Please tell me if I missed anything. simongraham (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]