Talk:Cyrtophora citricola

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): M.s.w.lee, Juliaskittle. Peer reviewers: M.s.w.lee, 17lchang, RenaBio472, Juliaskittle, SatvikR78, Dyklee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyrtophora citricola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203092224/http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/entcirc/ent411.pdf to http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/entcirc/ent411.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

M.s.w.lee (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC) I added a lead section, home range and territoriality section, and interaction sections, added information to several sections.

M.s.w.lee (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC) I added more information to mating section, social behavior, and enemies sections. I changed the plants subheading to agricultural impact and added some more information there as well

M.s.w.lee (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Added image

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions

I thought this article was really well-written, thorough, and well-cited. I made a couple formatting edits by removing the heading "Lead Section" and moving that section up to get rid of the white space at the top of the article. I also moved the images to the right side of the page to make the text more uniform. Finally, I moved the images down to the Webs section since both were images of webs. Overall, I found this to be a really good and interesting article. RenaBio472 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions

I edited the introduction a bit to take out niche details that were better for the bottom sections. I also edited the Habitat Distribution section (moved around a few sentences) and also edited some grammar errors. I liked the description because it included details that are unique to this specific species of spider. Overall a well-written article with lots of great research. 172.221.128.91 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

I have made grammar and syntax edits to make the writing more concise and reader friendly. I have rearranged information to better align with each section; for example, I moved a sentence from the "Habitat" section to the "Description" section because it entailed information about the physical appearance of the spider. I have also rearranged an image to be on the left side to prevent the article formatting from getting too monotonous. A suggestion I would make for the writer would be to add more footnotes. I tried to insert a footnote to cite how this spider was found in Florida in 2000, but I was unable to do so. Overall, a very informative and straightforward article. Dyklee (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

Outstanding article, I'm so impressed by all of the sections that have been added and how much information is in the article. I mainly edited the Lead Section; I made some grammatical changes, fixed some awkward phrasing, and deleted the last paragraph because the lead section is supposed to be shorter than what it previously was. I would suggest deleting another paragraph of the lead section as well but I didn't want to delete to much. I moved the last paragraph of the Description section to the Habitat and Distribution section because I felt it fit much better there. In the "Webs" section, there were a few places where I took out wording like "Research suggests" and "studies found", because I found out in the comments on my article that those phrases are unnecessary and the information should just be given as it is. SatvikR78 (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Peer Review

I went back and removed extraneous words. I tried to condense information when possible and made a few grammatical edits. M.s.w.lee (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction

The intro says

"this spider does not build orb webs"

And the Web type paragraph says

"Cyrtophora citricola build horizontal orb webs"

At least superficially this is contradictory. So something needs to be changed or clarified. --Ettrig (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs a thorough re-working. Rypstra (1979) at JSTOR 4599237 (I have institutional access) says the species builds "fine-meshed, horizontal, non-adhesive orb webs in large colonies". So they build orb webs that are not typical of araneids, since these are normally more-or-less vertical and sticky, and solitary. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyrtophora citricola/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, very well-written. I performed some light copyediting throughout. The article was informative and approachable. Some of the terminology can be a bit advanced for those without a background in the subject, but the linking and occasional explanatory clauses help to mitigate this. Well done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good. No major issues with MOS. Layout matches the layout of some other related articles.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	List of references is thorough and well-formatted according to established guidelines.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references seem good, uncontroversial, and from well-established sources. There were a few issues regarding repetition and availability. See below. Reference issues addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is well-sourced and researched.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations present.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article structure reflects that of other similar articles, which helped to guide a thorough treatment of the subject. The article touches on the main topics that may be of interest to the casual reader.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Overall, the article stays on topic. In the copyedit process, I did make some changes that should be reviewed. Please see the comment below. All comments addressed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything seems neutral, with no bias present.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring present. The article is well-established. Recent edits include changes brought resulting from GA1.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons. All appropriately tagged and attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A nice variety of images with simple captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Awaiting comments and edits from the requester. As noted on the requester's talk page, will wait 7 days before finalizing the review. -Pax Verbum 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC) All comments have been addressed. The article is informative, detailed, and approachable. Promotoing this to GA now. Congratulations! -Pax Verbum 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

M.s.w.lee: We will conduct the new review on this page. I'll try not to rehash anything that has already been addressed in the previous review. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any time! -Pax Verbum 22:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Ref. 9: Reference 6 and 9 seem to be the same. Can we simply use ref 6 only?
• Ref. 18: The link to the PDF from the AAS seems to be dead, coming up with a 404 error.
• Ref. 24: It seems neither of us can find an online copy of this source. I did, however, find this source with the same information, which itself references the original source. I wonder if we could include this since it is in English and available online?

   Ref. 10 is the same article that you provided so I replaced Ref. 24 with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref. 29: This one is in Spanish. It's not absolutely necessary to have it in English, but it would be helpful. That said, using my own facility in Spanish, I can't seem to find a direct reference to the article species or to the methods used to exterminate colonies. Perhaps I misread or didn't catch something, as my Spanish is only at an intermediate, and hence non-scientific, level?

    This was a miscitation the information is in Ref. 10 deleted Ref. 29 and replaced with Ref. 10M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose and content

Note: As I work through the article, I will place particular comments here under the corresponding section, sometimes grouping sections as I find time to look them over. I will probably do a bit of light copyediting on the way as well.

Items in bold need to be addressed directly.

Lead

• Overall, very good. Lead summarizes the article well and uses sources appropriately. I would say that the end of the third paragraph gets pretty detailed for a lead section. Perhaps rewording or even deleting the last couple of sentences, making sure that the more detailed information is in the article, of course.

   deleted the last couple of sentences M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Body

• Very clear and approachable. Completed some light copy editing throughout, which included minor punctuation, flow, or structure issues. Some of the terminologies can get a bit heady for non-biology types, but I think it's OK due to the linking of possibly unfamiliar terms.
• Web subsection: In the last paragraph, I brought some of the sentences together and restructured a bit for ease of reading and clarity. You may want to take a look at this.

   It looks good! Thanks for restructuring the section and improving its readability! M.s.w.lee (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Do they

Do they get on people and live 96.35.152.122 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Do these spiders live or can live bon humans

Get under humans skin and just live and have babies that spread 96.35.152.122 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)