Talk:Zygiella x-notata/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review. First a few quick comments to see if the nominator is still around:

overall, the article needs much more linking. Examples for the lead: caudal, sexual maturity, fecund
Throughout the article, the species is referred to in the plural, which is incorrect. Examples: "Z. x-notata are a member"; "The adult female Zygiella x-notata have a body size"; "Z. x-notata are active all year".
need a source for distribution in the "Population structure, speciation, and phylogeny" section. This section is improperly named, as none of these things are discussed in this section.
what source was used for the taxonomic synonyms?
the article is missing a section on taxonomy. Who named this species and in what year? Has there been any molecular phylogenetic studies? Are the subspecies still considered valid?
section headings and subheadings should be in sentence case per MOS:HEADINGS

I will leave these starter comments for the nominator to address. Esculenta (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta Thank you for your comments. I will start editing to resolve them. SlyFox52 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlyFox52: Hi, many days have passed without any edits to the article ... are we doing this review? Esculenta (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta: Hi, sorry about that. I will complete the edits within the next 3 days. SlyFox52 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta: Hello, I have gone through and edited to make plural references to Zygiella in the singular. I split the "Population structure, speciation, and phylogeny" section into a Common names section and a Taxonomy section. A citation was added to the taxonomy section along with a statement about the validity of the taxonomic status. I am still going through and adding more hyperlinks when needed. Could you specify what you mean in terms of "sentence case" for the headings? I looked through the MOS Headings page and am still unsure. Thanks!SlyFox52 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them here. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta: Are you still reviewing this article? I would love for the nomination to go through. Thanks SlyFox52 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I had forgotten about this completely. Ok, I had a fresh look and have some more comments on the first few sections; will post more suggestions later. Esculenta (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The adult female is easily recognized by the characteristic leaf-like mark on her posterior opisthosoma, caudal to the yellow-brown cephalothorax." this sentence is too complex for the average reader, and is especially out of place in the lead, which should be a friendly layperson introduction to the subject.

"lending to the common name of spider as the "missing sector orb weaver." grammar needs to be fixed

”This species is distributed widely around the world, primarily inhabiting areas of human occupancy in northern Europe.” it is unclear to me how the word "primarily" fits in here. Is there an area it inhabits secondarily? Does the species have a cosmopolitan distribution? Is is in the Southern Hemisphere at all?

"Common prey include flying insects" I don’t know if Pterygota is meant here, but if so that link could be piped to flying insects

"males discontinue web production in search of fecund females." is "fertility" close enough in meaning to fecundity that we could swap in the more easy-to-understand term while still linking to the jargon term?

I think lifespan would be a good addition to the lead.

if you wanted, you could use a convert template to add metric -> imperial conversions to make it easier for some American readers. For example, 5–11 cm (2.0–4.3 in). I don't think it's strictly necessary, just good practice.

the description section is quite laborious to read for a non-specialist because of all the technical terminology; I understand the difficulty of getting across technical material to the layperson. Try glossing (adding brief explanatory notes) more frequently. For example:

now: “In adult females, the carapace width is 1.5 mm”

post-gloss (with number conversion, too): “In adult females, the width of the carapace (upper section of the exoskeleton) is 1.5 mm (0.1 in).”

"The prosoma is yellow-brown" Here prosoma links to cephalothorax, but then the word cephalothorax is used later; do they have the same meaning?

"Zygiella x-notata was named by Clerck in 1757” Should add his first name and a link here. Any chance of including a citation to Clerck's original publication (and a link, if it's available online)?

from what source did the list of synonyms in the taxobox originate? They should be mentioned, if only briefly, in the taxonomy section. Something like "Zygiella x-notata has been placed in several different genera in its taxonomic history, including Aranea, Zilla, Pseudometa, and Larinia." or something like that, with a citation.

No response from the nominator (nor Wikipedia activity) for 3 weeks ... am closing this review due to inactivity. Feel free to make the suggested article improvements above and re-submit for GAN. Esculenta (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]