Talk:Evarcha maculata

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• At first glance, the word species is WP:duplinked within the first paragraph of the article body.
  • Good spot. I have removed that one and checked there are no others. I have also removed the duplicated unit conversions.
• I'd advise against showing other species in the taxobox than the subject of the article, pictures of related species should be shown under taxonomy or description if physically similar, as is customary.
  • Done. However, 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?

If a more diagrammatical, generic image representing the overall body plan of the genus or higher clade could be found, that might be acceptable. But leaving the taxobox empty will also make it more visible that an image is needed and there'll be a bigger chance that efforts will be made to find a free one of the exact species. This also goes for the other related articles I see that have the same issue.FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to WP:BEBOLD if you wish to remove the images. I find illustrations helpful. I do not claim to be a spider expert and would rather have something that is, as the literature says, hard to distinguish from the species without looking at its copulatory organs than nothing. simongraham (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Helpful in the article under description like here, yes, but misleading in the taxobox about a taxon they do not depict. Anyhow, it's beyond the purpose of this review to change it in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Any cladograms?
  • There is not one in the sources so I feel it would contravene WP:OR to create one.

Yes, it should of course be based on the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rangemap
  • I do not have one and found Graphics Lab/Map workshop did not yield anything when I last asked. Please do add one if you have the capability. I believe the data is the distribution section.

Is there a published map it could be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikimedia and found this: File:BlankMap-Africa.svg. Is that helpful? simongraham (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is there a map in the sources that show where the species is found? Because it might be problematic to make a range map from scratch which is based on text instead of on a published map, because the exact visual range will have to be inferred. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not seem so. I have looked through the published sources and there is no map there. There are online maps at eol.org[[1]] and jumping spiders.com[[2]] but they seem to only show a few examples and are not comprehensive.

• No behaviour/diet sections?
  • Added.

@FunkMonk: Thank you very much for your comments. Please take a look at my responses. Please do tell me if there is anything else you would like looked at. simongraham (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Added further comments above and below. Should be all for now. But note that the more general notes here also apply to the other articles you have expanded like this, so following them there will also help if you want to nominate those for GAN too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• "described by Christine Rollard and Wanda Wesołowska in 2002.[1] It was one of over 500 species identified by the Polish arachnologist Wesołowska" People should be presented by nationality nand occupation at first mention, here you do it at second, and only for one of them.
  • Wesołowska's nationality was requested by a previous reviewer but the literature only mentions the arachnologists' affiliation, and they may not have the nationality of their affiliated institution. I have therefore moved the discipline and removed the nationality.

• Also present other people mentioned as above for consistency.
  • Made consistent.
• "The genus is one of the largest" Largest could be misinterpreted as size, perhaps say "speciose" or some such.
  • Nice word!
• "This is a member of" What does "this" refer to?
  • Clarified.
• "In the following year, Prószyński added" You haven't mentioned a year in the preceding sentence.
  • Changed to the year.
• "added the genus to a group of genera named Evarchines" Why not just say "clade" as you do elsewhere instead of "group"?
  • Jerzy Prószyński explicitly calls it a "group of genera" in his article rather than a clade. I am not expert enough in the discipline to know the difference. Are they the same?

Not knowing the entire context, it's probably best to follow the source, then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• "species of jumping spider" You could give their scientific name here too.
  • Added.
• "The species is named for a Latin word that can be translated "spotted" and recalls the pattern on the spider's abdomen." Id move this up to the part about the naming of the species so it makes more chronological sense.
  • Moved.
• placed the spider in a new genus Evawes" Monotypic, or does it contain other species? And if monotypic, what does the name mean?
  • There are other species in the genus that were also moved there at the same time.
• What do they eat? If a source exists that describes basic biology that applies to the entire genus, that could be used to fill in the gaps.
  • I have added a comment based on the study of E. arcuata. Jumping spiders have a wide diet including nectar so it is hard to say exactly.
• The info on specimens under Distribution is kind of confusing without elaboration. So the holotype was found in 1991, but other specimens were found even before? Does that mean they were reidentified in museum collections or such? Such collection info may also be more relevant in the taxonomy section where the history of its discovery should be discussed.
  • I have reworded this to hopefully make it more clear that this is describing where in the various countries it has been found.

• "Evarcha maculata is known for living in mountain environments" A bit odd formulation. Is it really "known for" this, or is is simply known from this environment?
  • True. Reworded.
• "It thrives in savanna, particularly in the Guinea Highlands and near bodies of water like the Awash River" Thrives in is a bit of an overstatement if all we know is that specimens were found there.
  • Reworded.
• More of the uncommon anatomical terms could be explained in layman terms in parenthesis, especially in the description section.
  • I believe all the major ones (carapace, clypeus, epigyne) are explained and linked, and I have added a bit more explanation to the section on the male copulatory organs that hopefully explains this a bit better. I note that some of the articles that are linked use language like "the cymbium is the modified tarsus of the palp".
• "which can be translated "spotted"." Missing "as"?
  • Added.
• You give lengths for different parts of the body, are there no overall lengths given in the sources?
  • Unfortunately not. They also given other dimensions like the lengths of the legs, but I felt that was too much detail.
• "They have brown spines" Which? The hairs or the spider?
  • Clarified.
• "Its epigyne that has very heavy sclerotization." Seems like "has" shouldn't be there?
  • Changed to sclerotized.

@FunkMonk: Thank you this review, and I feel it has been helpful to look beyond the GA Criteria as you have done to enhance the article further. If you are able to help with the distribution map, that would be extremely helpful. I believe all the other changes have been made. Please do tell me if there is anything else.

Fixes look good, I've added a few comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you. That is very useful. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a published range map. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Not much that can be properly done with the map at this stage, so I'll go ahead and promote it. Nice little article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)