Talk:Leucauge mariana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. On the surface, it appears to be well written and contructed, but a deeper dive into the citations reveals problems:

"Less complete data suggest that the spider may also remember the locations of alterations she encountered previously while she is circling the web laying the sticky spiral, even after having circled 360o. She can distinguish this alteration from a second alteration that she encounters after having circled only 270o. Again, these feats are accomplished even though the spider cannot see the lines in her web and must rely on touch to sense them. Learning has little or no role in orb construction, as tiny spiderlings that are newly emerged from the egg sac build orbs with equally precise spacing between lines and make equally elaborate adjustments to the environment such as limited spaces in which to build their orbs.[18]" I cannot find where in the cited source this statement is supported.
"Experiments and measurements of webs have demonstrated several surprising mental abilities in L. mariana.[16]" The cited source is about an entirely different species (a sawfly), and does not even mention the article subject. This same source is used as a secondary citation in the final paragraph.
"In the Valle Central in Costa Rica the spiders are very common among weeds in early secondary growth and along wooded streams. Before the arrival of humans, secondary vegetation of this sort grew near rivers, landslides and tree-fall gaps.[4][5]" What part of this statement is supported by the first cited source?

Actually, in a different source (Aisenberg et al. 2015), I found this statement: "In the past, both species presumably lived in natural second growth ‘vegetation’, such as along the edges of creeks and rivers, landslides, and tree-fall gaps." So, the article is citing the wrong source.

Based on these examples, it seems the entire article needs to be checked to confirm if the sources support the statements to which they are cited. It seems the nominator has not edited since this article was put up for GAN, but I'll wait a few days to see if this major issue can be addressed. Esculenta (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No response in 10 days; closing review as not promoted. Esculenta (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]