Talk:Detalik

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 01:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this review. Comments in a few days. Esculenta (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments: Mostly suggestions for prose tweaks to clarify things and smooth the prose. I'll do spot check on the next pass. Esculenta (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "consisting of four described species." suggest removing "described" here; it makes perfect sense without it (another instance later in text)
  • Removed.
• "The genus was first circumscribed in 2021" genera are generally circumscribed only one one time, so "first" isn't necessary here (another instance in Taxonomy)
  • Removed.
• type species + "three other species" + another species described in 2022 = 5 species, no?
  • Amended.
• I think the arachno-jargon needs to be explained more in the lead; some suggestions:

"They have distinctive mouthparts, consisting of a short fang visible on the chelicerae" -> "They have distinctive features in their mouthparts, including a short fang on their jaws (chelicerae)"

"The carapace is noticeable for its" -> "The upper part of their body, the carapace, is noticeable for its"

"are hidden in a depression in the epigyne." -> "are hidden in a small indentation called the epigyne."

"Although the copulatory organs are unique to each member species, there are some common features. The males have a spike towards the back of the palpal bulb called a retromarginal apophysis and the female copulatory organs are hidden in a depression in the epigyne." -> "While each species has unique reproductive organs, there are some common features: males have a spike at the back of a structure used during mating (the palpal bulb), and females have their reproductive openings hidden in a small depression within the epigyne."

• Amended.

• the typical convention for species lists in taxoboxes is to link the species (sometimes as short-form binomials), and not give authority details (these details are properly given elsewhere); any specific reason to go against the norm here?
  • Amended.

Taxonomy

• "It was one of over 33 new genera described by the Polish arachnologist" that's oddly specific … suggest either giving the exact number (or leaving it about, as this article is about the genus and is only peripherally an example of her taxonomico-arachno prodigiousness); Wanda is referred to repetitively as a Polish arachnologist in quick succession.
  • Amended with a more up-to=date reference.
• "She named the genus for a Polish word that means "a fine detail"." suggest "She named the genus after the Polish word detalik, which means 'a fine detail'."
  • Amended.
• "The holotype for the type species was first found"
  • Removed.
• "These were all described in 2021, along with other members of the genus identified in the country," the country has not actually been mentioned yet
  • Added.
• "It is a member of the subtribe Thiratoscirtina." This starts a paragraph, so needs to be more specific with "It" here. Also suggest adding a brief gloss to give more context, such as ", a grouping of African jumping spiders known for their distinctive leg spines and complex mating structures."
  • Ammended.
• " First identified by Wayne Maddison and Melissa Bodner in 2012, it is endemic to Africa" still unsure what the "it" is
  • Clarified.
• "In 2017, Jerzy Prószyński described a group of genera called Thiratoscirtines that overlapped with the subtribe." suggest "In 2017, Jerzy Prószyński identified a group of closely related spider genera, known as Thiratoscirtines, which largely overlap with the subtribe Thiratoscirtina."
  • Amended.
• "Wesołowska has been responsible for describing a large proportion" ->"Wesołowska has described a large proportion"
  • Amended.
• "The genus is particularly related" "particularly" sounds a little unusual to me … maybe "closely" instead?
  • Amended.
• link cladogram
  • Added link.
• "Cladogram for the genus based on the work of Maddison in 2015." suggest "Cladogram of Salticidae depicting the internal phylogenetic structure of the clade Saltafresia and the relationships among several genera, including Detalik; based on the work of Maddison (2015).
  • Amended.
• "Aelurillina" is in the cladogram but not mentioned in the text; is it the "clade" name equivalent for the "tribe" Aelurillini?
  • Added.
• please check article throughout for unnecessary duplicate links
  • Removed.

Description

• seems to be missing any mention of body coloration (or specific patterns or textures)
  • Added.

Species

• "The genus contains four species in all:"
  • Removed.
• "The male has an irregular-shaped palpal bulb that has a large sickle-shaped spike towards the back," suggest "The male has an irregularly shaped palpal bulb with a large, sickle-shaped spike towards the back,"
  • Amended.
• "The male Detalik ibadan has a thinner and more pointed retrolareral apophysis." thinner and more pointed than what? The female, or males of other congeners? Should the word be retrolateral?
  • Amended.
• why is Detalik idanrensis not linked?
  • Added link.
• I get the overall feeling that the info about distinguishing the species would fit better in the description section (maybe as a subsection?). For the species list, consider adding where the type was located. It's not particularly intuitive where the distributions of each species is, and I think this might stem from this sentence in the lead that I see now plants a seed of confusion for later: "The spiders were first found in Nigeria but have also been identified living in Ivory Coast." It's not until later that it becomes clearer that the distribution of the species is individual and the statement shouldn't be applied generally to all of the species.
  • Clarified.

Distribution and habitat

• "The spiders thrive in woodland environments. both fallow bush and secondary forests, and to find a home in woodland near to rivers, including areas where bamboo can be found growing wild." needs repair; link fallow.
  • Amended and linked.
• "and has been found in areas where maize is sown cultivated."
  • Amended.
• the article lacks information about the spiders' behavior, hunting strategies, or ecological role. If such information is available, it would greatly enhance the article.
  • There is nothing in the sources, but I have some information on related spiders. Should I include that?

• Yes please; if there's nothing specific to say about the species b/c it's not well known, some general statements about this information as it applies to the genus is preferable to nothing.

• Unfortunately, all the sources I have predate the identification of the spider and so would be WP:OR.

• + Category:Araneomorphae genera?
  • Added Category:Salticidae genera.
• about Category:Spiders described in 2021 - I do believe this (and similar categories for other taxa groups) is for species only (including species->redirect to monospecific genus pages), and this should instead be Category:Taxa described in 2021
  • Amended.
• I don't think Category:Fauna of Ivory Coast should be applied to this genus, which contains species that do not belong in this category
  • Removed and replaced by Category:Fauna of West Africa.

Images

• the single image is suitably licensed and used appropriately in the article.

Sources

• all text is properly cited to scholarly sources

@Esculenta: Thank you for this very helpful review. Please take a look at my comments above and edits to the article. I believe everything is addressed. simongraham (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrapping up: I checked text–source integrity for all statements cited to Wesołowska & Russell-Smith 2022 and Wesołowska 2021, and didn't find any issues. I did notice that the former source is CC-BY-4.0 and has an image of the holotype of Detalik cavally that would certainly enhance this article ... I also wanted to point out some minor issue with the Specieslist template that is causing the list to not format properly (not on separate lines and not italicised). Putting review on hold ... Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: Thank you. I have fixed the template. I agree about the picture. The one on page 22 looks the best to me. How can we put it into the article please? simongraham (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You could use a screen capture to get the image and then upload to Commons (I do this on a Mac with Shift, Command, and 4, and dragging the crosshairs to select the desired capture area). Reminding you about my response in the "Distribution and habitat" above. Esculenta (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: Thank you. Unfortunately there is nothing we can add on the spiders' behavior based on the existing sources, but I have added the image and I feel this does improve the article markedly. simongraham (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, and with that I conclude this review. Promoting now. Esculenta (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)