Talk:Evarcha striolata/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "topside" to "top side"? also in the body
  • Done.
• "The spider...long." Sentence is a bit long and hard to read, I'd split it up.
  • Nt sure how to do that. I have changed the structure a bit to hopefully make it clearer.
• "in both the female and male is dark yellow" to "is dark yellow in both the female and male"?
  • Done.
• I'd change it to "female spermathecae (receptacles at the end of the insemination ducts)", since the current phrasing makes it seem like the gloss also applies to palpal bulbs.
  • Changed.
• No information about habitat in the lead?
  • Added.
• 'Named for a Latin word for a "striped",' to 'Named for a Latin word meaning "striped",'
  • Changed.
• "it was...the field." per comment at last review, this makes it seem like the species makes her a prolific author.
  • Removed.
• "The genus is one of the most speciose" Most speciose what? Genera of jumping spiders or spiders in general?
  • Clarified.
• "The genus is closely related to the genera Hyllus and Plexippus." Should be attributed to whoever had this opinion, since the very next sentence has it placed in a clade with two other genera.
  • Added.
• "named after the genus" I'd cut this, it's kind of obvious and makes the sentence harder to read.
  • REmoved.
• The description of the taxonomy is very muddled; you start by saying it's in a subfamily with two other genera, then say it's closely related to two others, then mention it being put in a clade with yet another two, and end by saying it's very closely related to another genus? I have no idea how these relationships intersect with each other and it's just very confusing, honestly. Are there any cladograms that could be used to make it clearer?
  • I have not found one. It seems that there are multiple opinions, which I am trying to convey. I have rearranged the sentences so hopefully this is clearer.
• "flavocin" Link and explain why this is part of the generic name.
  • The source just states "Name is created as arbitrary combination of letters coined of words Eva-[rcha] and [flavo]-cin [cta] indicating relation to Evarcha." I feel that commenting on the relationship with Evarcha is superfluous.
• "back.it is" typo
  • Fixed.
• "measuring typically" to "typically measuring"?
  • Changed.
• "similar in shape but larger" to "similar in shape to but larger"
  • Changed.
• "and savanna dominated" to "and in savanna dominated"
  • Added.
• "It will eat a wide" to "It eats a wide" Also, is this about striolata or is it still referring to arcuata? If it's arcuata, make that clearer in the text.
  • It is a comment on all Evarcha spiders. Changed and clarified.
• Will do spot-checks later.
• I see there's a couple other photos on Commons; maybe add a couple more photos of different views in the body. AryKun (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I have added one, a lateral view. Please tell me which of the others would be worth adding. simongraham (talk) 04:14, 9 September 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