Talk:Argiope argentata

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarrisZW777, Lilygreenberg. Peer reviewers: Eanisman, M.s.w.lee, HarrisZW777, Ahamed01, Lilygreenberg, Kekaze.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hey can we link the search "Silver Argiope" to this page as well? Should it be a redirect? stan goldsmith 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an image of a Silver Argiope along with what I believe is a male that I took this afternoon. I took it with my phone but the quality came out very good. I would like to add it but want to get a confirmation that the other spider in the shot is a male. File:Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two Silver Argiopes (Argiope argentata).JPG

--Jkatsis2 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just made some organizational changes in accordance with the standard spider outline (moved webs section and behavior sections to their usual places). Also, there was a comment on one of the gallery images that the dewdrop spider was too small to be seen so the image should be larger. I removed it from the gallery and increased its size. Does it seem ok now?

--Eanisman (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions

M.s.w.lee (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I added a decorations subsection for the webs category and moved a sentence from the web's section regarding dewdrop spiders into the parasite section. I also condensed a few sentences. I think the article is well written and well cited. I think some sentences could be restructured for clarity.[reply]

HarrisZW777 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) In order to help the article reach Good Article status, I added a few sections on conservation and parasites. Overall, I think your article is really well written and does in fact cover most of the criteria to reach Good Article status. As I was reading, I made a few edits on grammar and made a few of your sentences more concise.[reply]

Lilygreenberg (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I switched around some of the categories to distinguish between biting prey versus biting humans. I also added in some hyperlinks, and edited for grammar as well as sentence structure to make the sentences shorter and have more clarity. I still think that for some of the new information that was contributed there needs to be footnotes.[reply]

ahamed01 (talk) This Wikipedia provided a lot of helpful and relevant information on the spider. In addition, when comparing it to a good article, I would say that this Wikipedia page is a good resource for being titled as good content. I appreciate the categories that Lily provided for this spider. She also provided information on why the spider resided where it does, which is something I don’t think a lot of papers touched on. I found the information about the parasites to be interesting I was able to learn more information by clicking on the hyperlinks. Something that I worked on this Wikipedia page was edit the long, run on sentences. This page provided alot of useful information, but it was all piled up in long sentences. Therefore, I simplified the paragraphs and tried to work on the conciseness. —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)