Talk:Evarcha michailovi

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 07:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've been out of the game for a little while. Might as well have some fun as I ease back into Wikipedia; how could I deny such a cutie. Please note, I'm a med student so there many be a bit of delay with my replies.

Images

• Image rights are in order
• Caption looks appropriate
• Adding alt text is always welcome (optional)
• There are plenty of images on the commons, I recommend adding a couple
  • Added.

Sourcing

• Manually verified that all links are still live
• No immediate concerns on reliability
• I will have to take some of it on good faith since I cannot access every source in its entirety.
• Spotchecks on 4 of the sources for accuracy

Copyvios

• Earwig only flags the bibliography
• Spotchecks of the aforementioned sources found nothing concerning

Misc

• Nominator is the main author
• No stability issues

Prose

• It has a brown to dark carapace that... Clarify what color you mean here. Dark isn't a color, technically
  • Added.
• It has an orange hairy clypeus, or face, clarifying that clypeus is the face is only partially correct. The clypeus makes up part of the lower face, but there are about a dozen pieces that make an insect's face. Remove the 'or face' statement.
  • Removed.
• It has an abdomen that is between 1.88 and 3.13 mm (0.07 and 0.12 in) long, the female being generally larger than the male, but there is a wide variation in the pattern across different specimens. sentence needs work
  • Reworded.
• The copulatory organs are unique, particularly the male embolus and the female epigyne. Either commit to why it's unique or remove. Just calling them unique doesn't really mean much.
  • Reworded.
• The genus is one of the largest largest of what?
  • Clarified.
• In 1976, Jerzy Prószyński placed the genus was placed in the subfamily Pelleninae, grammar
  • Extraneous words removed.
• In 1976... How is this paragraph relevant to the species itself? This info is more usefully placed in the genus' article
  • Maybe this paragraph should be condensed to a few sentences.
    • Unfortunately the position of the different species in the genus Evarcha seem to be controversial, and Prószyński and colleagues have disagreed on the status of some of the members of the genus and the relationship between them and others in the tribe. The purpose of the paragraph is to show some of that history, and put context to the final sentence, which I have reworded so hopefully that is clearer.
• The male has a carapace, This made me laugh a little, I certainly hope the males have carapaces. Just say 'The male carapace..."
  • Reworded.
• The spider's face, or clypeus, same as above
  • Extraneous words removed.
• The spider's mouthparts, including orange-brown chelicerae, labium and maxillae sentence fragment
  • Reworded.
• Many are dark grey on top, sometimes marked with a pattern of dark line from front to back that has two white oval spots towards the front and black lines across the sides a few too many clauses in this sentence, difficult to follow.
  • Reworded.
• Some examples have a random pattern... and Others have a different pattern be more specific.
  • Clarfied. The pattern seems to vary from spider to spider.
• It also differs in details, filler words, remove
  • Removed.
• "Similar spiders" downgrade to subsection under "description" section
  • Downgraded.
• Other examples have been called Heliophanus simplex, Phlegra fuscipes and Sitticus pubescens. Unclear meaning
  • Rephrased.
• although those found in North America may be accidental migrants strange phrasing with 'accidental migrants'.
  • Reworded.
• The first find, the term 'find' is a bit vague. Consider rewording to something clearer
  • Reworded.
• subsequent discovery of the species in Spain proved that its distribution covered the entire continent. check your verb tenses
  • Fixed.
• The first Evarcha michailovi spiders were found on steppe and along the sides of forests the living amongst Alder and shrubs of genera like Cotoneaster grammar
  • Replaced extraneous word.

---

Per usual, I made some modifications to the article. Please review whenever you can. You often call specimen 'examples', it's not technically wrong but can make the text difficult to follow at times. Overall, this was a cute little article about about a cute little spider. These edits should be more than doable; ping me if you have any questions. Placing on hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Thank you for your intelligent and diligent review. I believe I have made the changes you have requested. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham, I went a head and did some fairly hefty copy-editing, please review when you can. It was mostly just clarifications and simplifications.

• Taxonomy section still needs trimming, see above issues
• These lead, via short and wide insemination ducts, to unusually shaped spermathecae, or receptacles, with small accessory glands. please specify how they are unusually shaped

• Reworded.

• However, the species has clear differences in the markings on its carapace. In context, this sentence comes off a little bit argumentative.

• Reworded the paragraph to clarify

• Nonetheless, previously, specimen have been misidentified as the related Evarcha laetabunda, particularly the males Why isn't this in a preceeding sentence?

• Moved.

• Evarcha spiders live across the world, although those found in North America may have been accidentally introduced by humans. Is this sentence necessary?

• Reworded.

That's it, hopefully. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Thank you. Please take a look at my edits. I too believe that is everything. simongraham (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks much better, signing off on GA. As always, please review my edits. Most of them were just clarifications and moving to active voice. Congrats!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.