Talk:Trogloraptor

size

This source [1], which credits Griswold, Audisio and Ledford, says "With its legs outstretched, the spider measures up to 3 inches (8 centimeters) long." Is it not reliable? The scale in the expanded image seems consistent with the size, which is larger than that given in the article. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a much better source. Thank you. The Zookeys article does not specify the leg span. Only the individual length of the legs.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Strictly speaking, we don't know if "It is the sole genus in the family Trogloraptoridae, and includes only one species Trogloraptor marchingtoni." is true. There may be more than one genus and more than one species; they just haven't been found yet. I would change this but can't think of a reasonable way to do so. Illia Connell (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We do know. Taxonomy requires that you publish a description of any new taxon first or at least offer incontrovertible proof of its existence (almost always a type specimen is required). Which is why while this was discovered in 2010, it only became "official" in 2012. Until a new species is described under it, it is speculation to imagine that it contains more than one. We could just as easily claim that there are two billion new species in the family as we could claim that there are two, they just haven't been found yet. We could give them imaginary names and make articles for them, but it still doesn't make them any more valid. See Species description, Alpha taxonomy, and the Principle of Typification. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Illia Connell (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

Is "Captured live specimens were raised in climate-controlled laboratory conditions ..." correct? Were these young specimens that were actually raised, or were they adults who were only kept in captivity? Illia Connell (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Kept" means nothing more than keeping them imprisoned, "raised" implies there was an attempt to let it follow its natural life history. The latter is more the case, and at least one specimen has molted to maturity in captivity, as mentioned in the journal article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks Illia Connell (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I propose to review this and will start in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Will be dealing with whatever issues you can find. Cheers for the review.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I have just read through the article and find the prose quality high. A few points I noticed:

• The second paragraph of the Discovery section overuses the word "discovery".
• "However, Trogloraptor exhibits several unique features, like primitive respiratory systems, that justify their separation to a different family." - This sentence is partly in the singular and partly plural.
• "... their habitat and hooked raptorial tarsi." - This uses the word "their" but does not make cleat to what it is referring.
• "... series of light-colored faint chevron markings." - I think the word "faint" should precede "light-colored".
• "They spin primitive webs with only a few strands, from which they hang from the roof of caves." - Do only the males spin webs?

No more time now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I think. I've moved the "primitive webs" sentence to the ecology subsection. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is of a good standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS guidelines are followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references are laid out correctly.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is adequately referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	In so far as information is available.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article was moved into mainspace in mid August.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This recently written article meets all the GA criteria in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

This is a great article, I was quite happy to see it on DYK. I hope it makes enough hits to be posted on the statistics page. Great work all around! μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Time travel

How did this spider give its name to animals before anyone knew it existed? Hyacinth (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The genus name has not been applied to any other species. It has been used to set up the name of a biological family. That is based on precedence. It was the first discovered. Close relatives that may be discovered from now on may or may not be assigned to that family. How else could it work? Names for groups of animals do not exist before anyone even knows they exist. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The name has been chosen by Griswold, who also happens to preside the international society of Arachnology this year. Wakari07 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)