Maevia inclemens has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 7, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that males of jumping spider Maevia inclemens (pictured) were once considered different species, but the females knew better?

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.

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will make straighforward copyedits as I go (see edit summaries for explanations) - and note queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd add one sentence noting how the two male forms are different in the lede.
  • Done - OK? --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, good. Just a bit of a heads-up was/is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have pencillata and pennicillata - please find and use the correct spelling - I suspect it is penicillata (?)
  • pencillata - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any other information on taxonomic history would be good in making section less "listy"
  • I usually give less about taxonomic history as it's Greek to most readers. I've given more for this species because the confusion over the male morphs are amusing. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You should be able to work in Charles Athanase Walckenaer (the describer) into the text.
  • He's linked in the taxobox. I admit this aspect leaves me cold, and in Portia fimbriata (up for GA review) the behaviour is so complex there that I'd be reluctant to overload readers, as they're in for a wild ride anyway. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Often there is some anecdote associated with collecting and naming organisms, that's all - not a deal-breaker though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is Robert Barnes? A couple of adjectives noting who he is is all that's needed.
  • There are other citations for "Robert D. Barnes", e.g. Water vascular system cites Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (1982), which I know I cited. My main zoology text book, Invertebrate Zoology: A Functional Evolution Approach (2004), is by Edward E. Ruppert, Richard S. Fox and Robert D. Barnes - that author died shortly after publication, and there will be no more editions. Probably these are all the same person. Back to the point: (a) in the context of M. inclemens, that's all I know (without Googling for as full a biography as I could find); (b) for the general reader, names mean little in zoology. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily, for instance there can be enthusiasts, horticulturists and taxonomists, though I agree most are just "naturalists" I find even something as simple as "american entomologist" or "naturalist" gives the sentence some flow and highlights to the reader why this person's opinion might be important or worth noting. But if he is obscure, don't worry about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find a source that explicitly connects the Robert D. Barnes used this here with the 1982 book nor with the my main textbook (2004) - although I can my "big book" (cited in the article) is a succession apparently started before 1982, see Book search results for "Robert D. Barnes" and Robert D. Barnes. But there's no explicit connection with the Robert D. Barnes who wrote North American Jumping Spiders of the Genus Maevia. And there are lot of deceased [Robert D. Barnes. Needles and haystacks, I'm afraid. --Philcha (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can anything be added about its relationships within the genus?
  • You mean sub-genera? Or phylogeny? The taxonomy may still be unstable - Robert D. Barnes at North American Jumping Spiders of the Subfamily Marpissinae (Araneae, Salticidae) (1958) p. 3, 48-49 lists 3 species, while Platnick's Catalog gives 12. The basic problems is that serious research into spiders in general started after 1962 (see WP:WikiProject Spiders), and the ealier I can see on Google about jumping spiders is Forster's A qualitative analysis of hunting behaviour in jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) - from the New Zealand Journal of Zoology, of course. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just thought there may be a bit on close relations - do any of them have the dimorphic males etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google got me nothing. Mating success and alternative reproductive strategies of the dimorphic jumping spider, Maevia Inclemens (Araneae, Salticidae) (cited) say at the end, "In light of the data presented here, such a mechanism for M. inclemens remains elusive. A more plausible explanation for the maintenance of the two Maevia male morphs is a mixed Evolutionarily Stable Strategy or ESS (Maynard Smith 1988) where the polymorphism is genetic (Clark 1992) and each morph has evolved its own unique tactic with equal fitness", but that's a verbose way of saying that the 2 morphs are equally successful. Attracting female attention: the evolution of displays in the jumping spider Maevia inclemens (Araneae: Salticidae) as a few untested hypotheses. A source I discounted and now can't remember suggested the 2 morphs evolved during an allopatric period and then the barrier came down before the 2 populations became different species - all speculative. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know providing general context is good, but in the senses section, only one sentence specifically refers to this species. Any more specific info here would be good.
  • If you can find something, that would be great. At present I have to assume Maevia inherits the default for jumping spiders, i.e. more acute in daylight than a cat. Two "primitive" subfamilies have slightly less good vision, expect that one of these, Portia, is one of the best (see Portia fimbriata and 'Eight-legged cats' and how they see - a review of recent research on jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) for a comparison. The little "Senses" section is the key to jumping spiders. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there no specific info on feeding?
  • The biggest weakness in this article. Remember that Salticid-ology is recent, and there are great gaps in the sources - most concentrate on one aspect (mating displays here, but not e.g whether she eats him after; or the camouflage of Phaeacius, whose sex life is a mystery). Only Portia fimbriata is well-rounded, and a lot of that applies only to the Queensland variant, which has AFAIK the most complex behaviour of the lot. --Philcha (talk)
    • • Sigh - am used to poorly known taxa - if it ain't there, it ain't there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking on web of science, I found the following not used in the article:

• • Title: Attracting female attention: the evolution of dimorphic courtship displays in the jumping spider Maevia inclemens (Araneae : Salticidae)

Author(s): Clark DL, Morjan CL Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 268 Issue: 1484 Pages: 2461-2465 Published: DEC 7 2001 Times Cited: 13

• • • I read this before, and it has nothing except what's already in the article from other sources . --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Title: Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae : Salticidae)

Author(s): Elias DO, Hebets EA, Hoy RR, et al. Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR Volume: 69 Pages: 931-938 Part: Part 4 Published: APR 2005 Times Cited: 30

• • • I'd make a note, but the only mention of "Maevia" or "inclemens" is in the references, and I've already read these and used the good bits. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Title: SIGNAL EFFICACY AND THE EVOLUTION OF MALE DIMORPHISM IN THE JUMPING SPIDER, MAEVIA-INCLEMENS

Author(s): CLARK DL, UETZ GW Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 90 Issue: 24 Pages: 11954-11957 Published: DEC 15 1993 Times Cited: 47

• • • I read this and IMO this brought nothing new to the party, just some artifical and speculative lab tests. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, if you feel it really is too esoteric for the lay reader, that's cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Title: VIDEO IMAGE RECOGNITION BY THE JUMPING SPIDER, MAEVIA-INCLEMENS (ARANEA, SALTICIDAE)

Author(s): CLARK DL, UETZ GW Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR Volume: 40 Pages: 884-890 Part: Part 5 Published: NOV 1990 Times Cited: 74

• • • Ditto. But thanks for trying. --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway...I can help try and get fulltexts of above if tricky...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - tricky. I am torn a bit about how we navigate lack of species-specific content in taxa we have little info on, so I understand this is difficult. Ultimately the article might be a little too heavy on nonspecific info, but then again it helps greatly in understanding the critter. In any case, not a deal-breaker, and article has enough to remian focussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maevia inclemens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612074518/http://www.emporia.edu/ksn/v47n1-february2001/KSNVOL47-1.htm to http://www.emporia.edu/ksn/v47n1-february2001/KSNVOL47-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614051354/http://people.umass.edu/ejakob/publications/HoefleretalJEconEnt.pdf to http://people.umass.edu/ejakob/publications/HoefleretalJEconEnt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]