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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Right then, having edited a metric f**kton of bio articles I am a strong believer in uniformity wherever possible. Also, some of the sections are over-subdivided, which chops the prose a little. Have a look at Redback spider, which shows the default headings and placements. e.g. taxonomy is way up the top as the definition of an organism is pretty important (way back we had a discussion over whether taxonomy section should come above a description section...can't for the life of me remember where we had it now...sigh. (e.g. like this)

• Paragraph 3 of the Morphology is applicable to all spiders so is unneeded here as there is no information specific to this species here.

• The last three sentences of the Diet section are uncited...and could probably be folded into previous bit or removed entirely. (actually does Different variations of cannibalism are observed in nature- most often used when resources are scarce and an individual needs to propagate its genes into future generations. refer to this species at all or is it general?)

• This does not present either spider with any problems. - sentence is redundant as implied by following sentence

• Social species of spiders are known to remain in the communities in which they were born in for their entire life. They feed and live communally, usually sharing webs and resources. - if it is not social this segment is unneeded and confuses reader and should be removed

• Similar to other members of the family Pholcidae,... - unneeded as pretty much diet of all spiders

• they are not near as dangerous to humans. - err, not dangerous at all?

• gallery use is discouraged - much better to insert relevant images near relevant text through article

• broaden scope of phylogeny section by calling it taxonomy and adding who named it (Johann Kaspar Füssli) and when.

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article! I greatly appreciate the helpful comments you left! I went through and made the appropriate changes per your comments. The only change that I did not make was that of changing "phylogeny" to "taxonomy." Instead, I made a taxonomy section and put naming information as well as a paragraph that was previously in my phylogeny section in there. Some of the information that I am wanting to portray does not fit under the title of taxonomy as it does not pertain to naming but rather population structure. For that reason, I still kept the phylogeny title to represent that paragraph. Please let me know if you recommend any further changes such as maybe just combining the two aforementioned sections into a "Taxonomy and Phylogeny" title. Thanks again!! Kekaze (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think a unified "Taxonomy and Phylogeny" section is good.

• I'd ditch the subsections of the Description section too.

• Much like most other species of spiders, P. phalangioides must be aware of other spiders that could be looking to feed on them. - I think this is pretty much true of all organisms (except maybe the largest...) so is redundant and fluffy

• One such family of spiders that is a commonly known predator of Pholcus phalangioides is the Salticidae, better known as the jumping spiders - this switches between singular and plural which is jarring, why not just, "The species is preyed upon by jumping spiders" - ?

• NB: regarding primary sources, I find they are much more useful in articles that are esoteric/niche and uncontroversial, such as many many biology articles, as they are integral to comprehensiveness.

Hi! Thank you for going back through and making some very good suggestions. I went in and made the changes that you recommended including removing some of the redundancy. Please let me know if anything else sticks out as needing to be changed. Again, thanks for bearing with me through this process! Kekaze (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Need to address the ^{[citation needed]} tag Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I totally forgot to add that originally. Thanks for catching that! It's now fixed. Kekaze (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then...

Earwig's copyvio clear (apart from two silly false positives)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: (could do with a bit of tightening but is ok)

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: - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]