Talk:Evarcha maculata

Evarcha maculata is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by simongraham (talk) at 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Species of spider

Africa: Ethiopia / Guinea / Ivory Coast Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ethiopia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Guinea portal This article is supported by WikiProject Guinea (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ivory Coast (assessed as Low-importance).

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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

I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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.

Also present other people mentioned as above for consistency.

"The genus is one of the largest" Largest could be misinterpreted as size, perhaps say "speciose" or some such.

"This is a member of" What does "this" refer to?

"In the following year, Prószyński added" You haven't mentioned a year in the preceding sentence.

"added the genus to a group of genera named Evarchines" Why not just say "clade" as you do elsewhere instead of "group"?

"species of jumping spider" You could give their scientific name here too.

"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.

placed the spider in a new genus Evawes" Monotypic, or does it contain other species? And if monotypic, what does the name mean?

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.

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.

"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?

"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.

More of the uncommon anatomical terms could be explained in layman terms in parenthesis, especially in the description section.

"which can be translated "spotted"." Missing "as"?

You give lengths for different parts of the body, are there no overall lengths given in the sources?

"They have brown spines" Which? The hairs or the spider?

"Its epigyne that has very heavy sclerotization." Seems like "has" shouldn't be there?