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:Menemerus animatus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 16:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this. Should have comments up in a day or two. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts about this article. Esculenta (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "based on an example from Egypt." this detail about the type locality should certainly be included in the taxonomy section
  • Excellent idea. Added.
• I question the value of including imperial measurements for sizes that are so small. Especially in the lead, where it seems cluttered (and sig figs of output need to be corrected anyway), but even later in the already dense description section. Is there any practical value in this?
  • Removed from the lead. I understand that there are those for whom they are critical to their understanding so am happy to retain them for the greater good in the body.
    • I have difficulty imagining a person whose non-understanding of metric is so thorough that to them "0.059 and 0.083 in" is more comprehensible than "1.5 and 2.1 mm". But it's not in the GA criteria, so I'll let it go. At the very least, adjust the sig. fig. outputs (e.g. if the input is "2.8 mm", the output should not be the falsely more precise "0.110 in". Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added significant figure limits.
• "The spider is very similar to the related" very similar … maybe add "in appearance"
  • Added.
• link copulatory organ?
  • Added.
• can't just casually drop spider jargon "secondary conductor", "tibial apophysis", "insemination ducts", "accessory gland", etc. in the lead without explanations.
  • I have added explanations to secondary conductor and tibial apophysis. An insemination duct is a duct that is used during insemination - can you suggest an explanation that would be helpful please?
    • Current: "The male has a short embolus that lacks the ancillary organ known as a secondary conductor that often occurs in other species. The spike, or apophysis, on the palpal tibia is also straight. The female has distinctive fissured entrances to its insemination ducts and accessory glands that sit in front of the copulatory openings."
    • Suggested: "The male spider has a short reproductive part called an embolus, which is missing a helper organ often found in other species, known as a secondary conductor. Additionally, the male has a straight spike, known as an apophysis, on a part of its front limbs called the palpal tibia. The female, in contrast, has unique, cracked-looking openings leading to its reproductive ducts. It also has special glands located in front of the reproductive openings."
      • Amended.
    • This may or may not be better, but the currently the final three sentences read a bit technical and might be helped with more explanatory prose ... more links here would also be good (apophysis, palpal tibia, ducts, glands). Maybe link to the anchored definitions in Glossary of spider terms? Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good idea. Added.
• the lead is a big chunky paragraph of disparate material right now. Perhaps a paragraph break or two might be in order, along with more layperson-friendly prose?
  • I have adjusted some of the prose so hopefully it reads better.
    • It does read better, but the material could be logically be broken into three more digestible paragraphs (para1=what/where, para2=description, para3=similar species; the final three sentences look like they should be grouped with the descriptive info summary 3 sentences earlier). Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
• technically, genera and higher taxa are circumscribed rather than "described"
  • Good spot. Added.
• think there should be quotes for the translated text appearing after "meaning" and "translated"
  • Added.
• "Genetic analysis has shown" what kind of genetic analysis? molecular phylogenetics?
  • Clarified with link.
• could we add Prószyński's first name (like the others)?
  • Added and linked.
• typo: "hairs on irs"
  • Corrected.
• the description section is quite dense and technical. Could it perhaps be written with more explanation weaved into the text, so that a layperson could also understand without having to click every link? Here's a try (1st paragraph):

Menemerus animatus is a medium-sized spider with unique physical features. The spider's body is divided into two main parts: the cephalothorax, which is long and broad, and the abdomen, which is narrower and oval-shaped. Males of this species have a carapace, the hard upper part of the cephalothorax, measuring between 2.1 and 2.8 mm in length and 1.5 to 2.1 mm in width. The carapace is dark brown but has a distinctive triangular patch of white hairs, while the rest of it is covered with greyish-white hair, including the area around the eyes, which is darker. The spider's face, known as the clypeus, is adorned with short white hairs.

The mouthparts, consisting of brown chelicerae and lighter brown labium and maxillae, contrast with the yellow sternum, the underside of the cephalothorax. The abdomen, ranging from 2.2 to 3.6 mm in length and 1.4 to 1.9 mm in width, is primarily light-colored with a narrow brown stripe down the middle. This area is covered in dense light hairs interspersed with brown bristles and small silver patches, and its underside has a yellowish hue. The spider's spinnerets and legs are yellow, with leg hairs and spines being brown. The pedipalps, sensory organs near the mouth, are brown with white hairs visible on the palpal femur.

A key feature of the male Menemerus animatus is its embolus, part of the reproductive system, which is short and slightly curved towards the palpal bulb. This species lacks the secondary conductor found in other species of its genus. It also has a single small tibial apophysis, a projection on the leg. Specimens found in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia show variations in this structure, with those from Algeria having much shorter, triangular tibial apophyses, and those from Saudi Arabia featuring a longer tibial apophysis and an embolus that ends in a gentle curve."

• There's other styles of course; one could give the lay-explanation as a parenthetical gloss (or vice versa), but the idea is to make it accessible for more readers.
  • That looks excellent. I have amended this section and also expanded the following paragraph somewhat.
• perhaps the final paragraph of "Description" section should be a "Similar species" section or subsection?
  • Added.
• entrance bowl? sounds neat. what is it?
  • It is a bowl near the entrance of the insemination duct.
    • Since it's a specialized term in common language, could we add a short gloss (e.g., something like "There are also wide entrance bowls (a structural feature of female spiders in which the male deposits sperm during copulation)...) Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added.
• the behaviour section is somewhat brief and generic. Any more details about this "complex approach to their prey" alluded to?
  • Unfortunately the sources do not say. I assume it is to do with their approach strategy.
• "They … are generally more proactive in comparison to web-spinning spiders" proactive in what way? more explanation please
  • Added.
• "The males also undertake aggressive displays between themselves" now my mind is racing with all of the ways males spiders can be aggressive with each other .. details please
  • Unfortunately the sources do not say.
• "Menemerus spiders are found throughout Africa and Asia, and have been identified as far as Latin America." This is a general statement about the genus, and the statement "as far as Latin America" implies that the genus has a center of diversity far from Latin America, but without that background knowledge, it sounds a bit unusual.
  • Yes - the centre is Africa and Asia, and it is likely that those in Latin America are introduced.
• link Lower Egypt
• there are 15 instances of the word "found" in the "Distribution and habitat" section ... prose would benefit from some massaging
  • Done.
    • Better! A final nitpick: two consecutive sentences repetitively starting with "It has also been...". Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hopefully that is now done.
• a range map would be really helpful
  • True. However, there is not one in the sources. Is there a way to create one?
    • Yes! Check out WP:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop. Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I have added a request.
• This section mentions the species' presence in a wide range of countries but lacks detail on the specific habitats within these regions. Adding information about the spider's preferred habitats in different countries would provide a more comprehensive understanding of its ecological niche.
  • There is not much in the sources. I have added what I can glean.
• in my opinion the taxobox image should not be populated with the image of a known different species (even if they look superficially similar), but it would work well with the current 3rd paragraph of the "Description" section
  • I understand. I feel that, if there is not one of the specific species, having a representative image in the taxobox is a huge benefit. Do you have a more relevant image that we can use please?
    • Nope. I don't think it would detract in any way if the image of a different species was included elsewhere in the article, but it's not GA-criteria, so I'll just register my objection and move on. Esculenta (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• otherwise, image is high-quality, relevant to the topic, with proper copyright status
• all sources are scholarly and nicely formatted (thanks for including translations)
  • You are welcome.
• for spotchecks, I checked the sources to corroborate the description, and confirmed that the sources supports the information given. The structure of the source and Wikipedia version is in some cases similar, but not so much as to be problematic. I suggest, however, that slightly restructuring the current prose to be a bit more layperson friendly will help the article and further distance the wiki prose from the original.
  • Good point. Hopefully, this reads better.
• @Esculenta: Thank you for your excellent review. Please take a look at my amends and tell me if there is anything more I can do. simongraham (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Esculenta: Thank you for your fast response and recommendations. Please see above. simongraham (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the changes look good and I'm confident that the article meets all of the good article criteria. Promoting now. Thanks for your efforts in improving taxon articles! Esculenta (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]