Talk:Evarcha prosimilis/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a look now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we need images. There seem to be free images available, particularly from Inaturalist. See here: [1]
- That is a good spot. I have added the one that I feel is most appropriate.
What about common names? Inaturalist uses the name "Common Evarcha Jumping Spider".
- I believe this is unreliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#is iNaturalist a reliable_source?, but am happy to be disproved. It is so called in Waterberg's list[2] but I cannot find the reference in any peer reviewed or published source. Is this sufficiently credible?
  - Unless the authors of the website are established researchers, we should not use it (self-published). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I will omit the common name. simongraham (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evarcha prosimilis is a species of jumping spider in the genus Evarcha – Remove "in the genus Evarcha". Those who know what a genus is already know that it is in that genus based on the species name.
- Removed.
an abdomen that is between 1.7 and 3.2 mm (0.07 and 0.13 in). – in length? In width?
- Clarified.
The female has a larger abdomen than the male that has – Grammar seems wrong. Which "has"? The male or female?
- The female. Changed to "and".
the species Evarcha similis.[2] That description was based on a female found in 1996.[3] It was one of over 500 species identified by Wesołowska – is that still all about E. similis?
- It is.
What does "identified" mean in the quote above? It does not mean "named" or "described", or?
- Described. I was trying to avoid using the same word in consecutive sentences.
A cladogram in the taxonomy section would help, if one has been published.
- Sadly not.
As well as in plant litter found under Podocarpus trees, – Where does "as well as" relate to here? Something missing?
- Rephrased.
while the hatchlings are young. – Are there hatchlings that are not young?
- Clarified.
  - Still not convinced here. The article hatchling says the term applies to "a newly hatched fish, amphibian, reptile, or bird"; is it appropriate for spiders? I also thought that hatchlings are those that just hatched, and hence are always very young. Would using the word "young" instead an alternative? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reworded. simongraham (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I checked the main source (Wesołowska & Cumming, 2008).

retreats between two leaves sown together. – quite closley paraphrased, suggest re-wording.
- Reworded.
low-lying vegetation – source doesn't say that the vegetation is lying on the ground, it just says "low vegetation".
- Removed.
  - Still there? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops. simongraham (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the male holotype was discovered in a house in Zimbabwe in 1999. – Source does not say that the holotype is from Zimbabwe, or am I missing something?
- It is in the title of the work.

Assessment: I made some copy edits to the text directly. You could be a little more careful with close paraphrasing. The spot checks showed several possible minor issues, but nothing outrageous. As far as the above items are addressed, I can promote this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you for those edits and your thoughtful comments. I believe the amendments have been made although I am open to your suggestions on the credibility of the sources for the common name. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks good. See three replies above; we are almost there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you. That is very helpful. Please see my edits and comments above. simongraham (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and congrats, I am promoting this now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.