Talk:Spider/GA1

GA Reassessment

I was surprised to see this was listed as a good article, since inline citation is sorely lacking. Although this is probably a field that relies on textbooks, even then it should be referenced a lot more densely. The other good article criteria (well written, broad, neutral, stable, images) seem ok. -- unsigned written by 21:01, 4 October 2008 User:Stevenfruitsmaak

I've done what I can except for the lead - that will take at most half an hour once we're happy with the content. Comments, please. -- Philcha (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work, my concerns have almost completely dissipated. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does "almost" mean I should expect more detailed comments? -- Philcha (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There are still two are three {{citation needed}}s lurking around, once these have been addressed I think we can close this review. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Zapped the blighters. I've also re-written the lead so that it now summarizes the content. -- Philcha (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, my concerns are now gone and I've passed the article for GA review. Keep up the good work! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible reason for lack of citations

The article lacks citations because on the topic of spiders most papers are specific to species or genera, not spiders in general. I dont feel the lack of citations is a reason for the article to be de-listed.--Arachnowhat (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, there are many specific examples of exceptions to general rules that involve specific species or genera. Those could at least be cited. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, much general stuff is unsourced. while it will probably be a major piece of work to piece the refs together from textbooks, i guess this should probably be done soon. i don't have much time at the moment, but will see what i can do; if some other people would like to take out their textbook(s) on spiders and give nice refs to the facts in this article, i guess we should be able to get this article up to standards. one (to me) important thing: please don't clutter the text with in-source refs, instead use refs like this: <ref name=platnick2008>Platnick 2008</ref> and then quote the full source at the end of the article under References. it's really hard to edit an article with lots of full reference in the source, and i know of several very gifted people that refuse to work on cluttered articles like this. --Sarefo (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make citations come out so that there is, on level one, a bibliographical entry, e.g.,

Grodenchik, Jeffrey, Spider of Northubria, Cambridge 1908.

Grodenchik, Jeffrey, Spider of Southubria, Cambridge 1918.

and then on another level,

Grodenchik, 2, p. 138

Or something like that?

In lots of cases where the pages are set up just using the "ref" "endref" setup, one ends up having to repeat book name, publishers, etc., and it is extremely messy and inefficient. Maybe Sarefo San could set up a sandbox or a sample and we could adapt that setup to the entire spider article. P0M (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)