The lead section is too long! Per WP:LEAD, the maximum is four paragraphs, and I don't really see a four-paragraph article here. There are not so many themes to describe; just what makes this spider notable (its unique features), then generally how it lives and where it lives. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The Cambridge Philosophical Society reference is a dead link. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Check out this automated peer review. It notes a bunch of problems, including a too-long lead, text introduced in the lead but not in the article body, the absence of an image in the infobox, improper style of numbers, improper style of headers, redundancies, and other general concerns. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The article is in British English so the Colorado State University external link should be described as being about the spider's behaviour, not behavior. Metric units should end in 'metre' not 'meter'. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Images are good, properly licensed, and the references appear complete after a quick glance. The article's images would be better if they alternated left–right, with the chelicera and the "squared-off" images hugging the left border. Is there a photograph of the spider for the infobox?
The problems I'm seeing with the lead section are enough to stop this review. Instead, I will put the review on hold to see if editors are willing to improve the writing. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
WP:LEAD says at the top, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." I don't make leads long for fun, e.g. Dragon's Egg has 2 paras and at Robert Rossen, which is a fairly long article, the lead is 4 paras. In Portia labiata, there are 6 distinct sub-topics, and merging them would make it more difficult to understand: size and appearance; vision (crucial for jumping spiders); hunting tactics (complex even in summary); special case of hunting tactics in 2 populations; ability to solve a novel problem; reproduction and cannibalism (P. labiata is one of the most cannibalistic). The only 2 sub-topics that might be OK if merged are hunting tactics in 2 populations and ability to solve a novel problem, as these both show contrasts between the same 2 populations. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I just looked at your Zoology GAs as listed on your userpage and most of them have more than four paragraphs. I would not have listed them: I would have pointed to WP:WIAGA where it says the candidate for GA should comply "with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." It says that "other aspects of the Manual of Style ...[are] not required for good articles", meaning that the previously listed aspects are required. Certainly there can be exceptions for articles with longer leads, but these should be exceptional articles, not an undisputed zoological article about jumping spiders. I don't think it is in the interest of the GA process to continually advance articles from writers who make a regular habit of stepping outside of the guideline at WP:LEAD without a very, very good reason to do so. I don't see such a reason here, and I did not see the reason at any of your other zoological GAs, all on undisputed topics.
Horse, Shark, Lepidoptera, Polar bear, Insect, Fish, and Brain are all biological articles covering very large topics known for human involvement and, at times, dispute, yet these are all GAs with four or fewer paragraphs in the lead. P. labiata is not so complex as these others.
At Portia labiata, the lead section is not written in a way that encourages the reader to look further {without teasing the reader, of course); it is not written such that the most interesting facts grab the reader's attention in the first paragraph. To be frank, the casual reader will be put off by reading dry facts telling him that the spiders are 5 to 10 mm in size. What they want to know right away is that P. labiata commonly eats other spiders, hunts in other spiders' webs, and sometimes stabs other spiders in the back. That's juicy stuff! Writing a more attractive lead section will allow some of the dry detail to fall away, relegated to the article body, and will make the lead section shorter, compliant with the guideline.
I feel certain that this article will be improved with a shortened lead section. It was possible with Entoprocta, Maevia inclemens and Phaeacius; it should be possible with P. labiata. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that you review the rest of the article and then return to the lead. As a reviewer, I leave the lead to the last, as then: I can a better grasp of the facts; I think I know better what is important; there's no risk of multiple passes through the lead if the review has led to significant changes in the body of the article. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't see the need to continue this review if the lead is not to be rewritten to be more concise and more interesting. It's a severe problem. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you haven't read the article thoroughly, you're in no position to comment on the lead. --Philcha (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Let me know if you wish me to close this GA. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you're not going to review the article body, ... --Philcha (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have examined the article body, references and links. I am halting the review to see if the article lead section will be brought into compliance with WP:LEAD in terms of length and in terms of being interesting for the reader. Even though I have examined the rest of the article, I am not continuing the review until the major problem of the lead is addressed. You have not given any indication of willingness to fix it; instead you have been defensive. The article's GAN is still on hold, there is still a chance to rewrite the lead section before closing the GAN without listing the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
At the start of the article you said, "There are not so many themes to describe; just what makes this spider notable (its unique features), then generally how it lives and where it lives." I see 6-7 themes: location (there are Portia species all over the Old World southern hemisphere species, where is this species?); size and appearance (they are not tarantulas as big as your hand); vision (defining features of jumping spiders, is the basis of their hunting, mating and tricks); how Los Baños and Sagada populations deal / not deal with spitting spiders; how Los Baños and Sagada specimens deal with crossing a little moat); a cannibal for all seasons. I doubt that there are "unique features" singly compared with other Portias, what's unique is the combination of features. --Philcha (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and the themes that are somewhat similar can be made to share paragraphs. Certainly one paragraph can handle where they live and the fact that one population solves problems differently than another. Another paragraph can describe the physical size, the eyes, how they hunt and what they eat. That's two paragraphs; the first few sentences of the lead paragraph can introduce the most interesting points to grab reader interest: cannibalism, trickery, mimicry, stabbing, venom and intelligence. Let the reader know that this is one of the weirdest spiders in the world. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
(undent) I'll think but what you just wrote and respond tomorrow. In turn, would you please think about:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders's quote "Not long ago the spiders were the most neglected of the most interesting animals" (Theodore Horace Savory, 1962)
One effect of this that genus Portia has at least 17 species, and research on most is still mainly about identifying species by minute study of anatomy. P. labiata may well be the 2nd most studied species, after Portia fimbriata (experts said the latter is the most studied). Hence I think we need to be cautious about "unique features", as discoveries may show that some apparent USPs may turn out to be common. For example, I know another species as cannabilistic as P. labiata, possibly more so as females of this other species does not using the "smell" of other females' draglines to avoid dangerous conflicts.
AFAIK the nearest thing to a "unique feature" in P. labiataat present is the different in the Los Baños and Sagada specimens' adaptability when crossing a little "moat". But P. fimbriatain Queensland also passed this test, while other regional populations P. fimbriata have not yet been tested in this way, possibly because of difficult in getting specimens.
So I'd avoid the idea of "unique features". In fact, if I were GA-reviewing an article about a Portia species and the article used such exceptional claims, I would be very suspicious. --Philcha (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good points, all. Let's swap the word unique for interesting in my suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I noted that you prefer that "cannibalism, trickery, mimicry, stabbing, venom and intelligence" should be at the top of the lead. My concern is that would make the result would be incoherent. Cannibalism is based on the rest of mating and some of hunting, and also the fact that males are smaller and less powerful. Trickery is part of hunting. Mimicry is part of hunting, and uses part of appearance. All of these are based on movement and senses. And "intelligence" would be misleading. It seems that almost behaviour is instinctive, the clever parts are uses of trial and error, and these actions are switched on by instinct. The reviewers at Maevia inclemens and Phaeacius were happy with the systematic approach in the lead. --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
PS I apologise if my responses are slow - I'm overloaded, as a GA review of another article I nominated has just started, and I was already conducting 3 GA reviews which are more complex than they looked. --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am not under any time pressure and I don't think you need to hurry this GAN for any reason.
Regarding the composition of a new lead section, you have good points about cannibalism, intelligence etc. I still believe that the lead section can be—must be—written better.
The other reviewers are not my concern at this time. I think they were lax. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
See revised lead. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
It still bogs down right away with how many millimetres in size the spiders are. If size is to go in the lead section I would not put it in the second sentence. Also, I would leave the number of millimetres for the article body, settling for a comparison to a familiar object in the lead section, such as the direction taken by NationMaster encyclopedia regarding the members of the Portia genus being "no larger than a button on a man's dress shirt", perhaps adding that the male is slightly smaller. Perhaps the paragraph beginning with "eight-legged cats" can be brought up into the lead paragraph, dropping the size and color description down to a lower paragraph. Perhaps the acuteness of the eyes can be integrated into the hunting tactics paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Metric is used in science, and this is a science article. "no larger than a button on a man's dress shirt" is less precise (? and WP:COPYVIO), and culture-bound. --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Putting "eight-legged cats" or any part of the behaviour before vision is confusing, as all the rest of the behaviour is based on the vision (except for smelling territory markers). I've arranged the lead so that each para has at least "sweetie", to avoid giving readers indigestion. --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm not asking you to remove millimetres from the article body, just the lead section. In other words, I'm asking you to provide the casual reader with something to hang their hat on, while retaining the scientific measurement for precision.
Regarding non-cultural-bound size comparisons, you have myriad options. How about "no bigger than a pea"?
I don't get your reference to COPYVIO. Can you explain? Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your "no bigger than a pea" is wrong or ambiguous, as the peas in my freezer are about half that size and do not expand during boiling. Specifying some variety of pea that is 10mm in diameter would not help readers who don't know that variety - and peas are spherical, while Portias are not, see the diagram. Buttons have the same problem - variety and wrong shape. On the other hand, almost all readers have a ruler, so "Adult females have bodies 7 to 10 millimetres long ..." is clear. --Philcha (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
If such a comparison appears in the lead, it would also have to be in the article body, with a citation. --Philcha (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, the lead section summarizes the information in the article body. Your millimetre information in the lead section is not a summary. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is the most concise and clear way to give the size, so it's a good summary. When are you going to review the article body? --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
How about the word "small"? That's concise and it is a summary rather than a repetition.
"small" is uselessly vague - "small" / "medium" / "large" compared with what? --Philcha (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The article body is okay. The article lead does not conform to WP:LEAD and WP:MOSINTRO as it is required to. It is not a concise summary and it does not create interest in reading the rest of the article. It is not written in an accessible style—it is over-specific in its descriptions.
Wikipedia:LEAD#Opening_paragraph says, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list." The 1st para of the lead of Portia labiata gives the species' range and enough description for a reader to recognise a specimen in a photo or museum - and includes the species' vision, which is the basis for most of its behaviour. One could interpret "context" to include taxonomy, and even phylogeny if available, but the summary of that would be "1 of 17 species in the genus ...", and I'm not sure you'd like that, as taxonomy is a dry subject. --Philcha (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re "it does not create interest in reading the rest of the article": the 1st para summarises the size and appearance, and concludes with the species' vision; each of the paras has at least 1 sweetie, usually at the start. --Philcha (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
What must be taken out: specifics on size, and specifics on color, markings and hairs. The second lead paragraph is good. The third is a little wordy but passable. The fourth is good. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re specifics on size, colouring, markings and hairs see above. --Philcha (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm done arguing whether your lead is in keeping with WP:LEAD. I believe it is not, that it is immediately overly-specific and thus dulls the reader's interest. If you wish this GAN to go forward with positive results then fix it. Otherwise, let's stop jousting and end the GAN. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't see that you are serious, as you have not actually taken out the size and markings text, but merely hidden it. I was thinking that a summary of it would work. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
(undent) You wrote, "What must be taken out: specifics on size, and specifics on color, markings and hairs," and that's what I did. Which do you want to keep, the size or the colouration? --Philcha (talk)
How about "The front part is orange-brown and the back part is brownish"? --Philcha (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
That could be good, along with saying the spider is small. The lead is an accessible summary. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
"This is a middle-sized jumping spider. The front part is orange-brown and the back part is brownish." --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not seeing that this is a serious edit because you have kept your foot in the door by hiding rather than removing the wording about millimetre sizes and male vs female markings. Beyond that, the two new sentences are trivial and do not flow; they appear combative in the context of your not wanting to cooperate with the requests to make the first paragraph be an accessible summary. The characteristic of the spider being "middle-sized" can be worked into a pre-existing sentence. The color sentence can have a smoother reading flow. The retention of hidden text calls your dedication into question. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Removed hidden text. --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
"In this middle-sized jumping spider, the front part is orange-brown and the back part is brownish". --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The article shows no editing since August 11. The hidden text is still there and your August 12 suggested wording is not there. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done. My next editing will be later afternoon Mon, or perhaps Tues, as I'm away from home. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
No comments about this GA this week. I'll be away from late afternoon Fri 19/8/11 to start of Tue 23/8/11. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
No further comments about this GA this week. I'm back. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The top of that page says ""Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question". --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
So it seems that you'll have to check all of "text introduced in the lead but not in the article body, the absence of an image in the infobox, improper style of numbers, improper style of headers, redundancies" for yourself. I'd be surprised if there's text introduced in the lead but not in the article body, as I write the lead last, with the next browser tab showing the main text - except for the higher levels of the taxonomy, as usual. It's pity, as otherwise I'd use the tool when I get near the end of writing the main text :-( --Philcha (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I linked to the tool only because it can quickly indicate places where a human may find ways to improve the article. I did not offer it as a replacement for human examination. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fix "-meters" to ""-metres". Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re the Colorado State University external link, that's the web page's title. Likewise if I were citing a USA source in the main part of the article ("References"), I'd quote as written by the source. See Wikipedia:Mos#National_varieties_of_English. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re absence of lead image, FIST has still got me no new free images, only the ones already present. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re position of images:
MOS is a guideline, and its suggestions about images are problematic. In addition, WP:WIAGA uses a very restricted subset of MOS, which excludes image position and size. I know a little about designing for the web, and the main priority is ease of reading. A western reader reads left to right, and a image on the right is a "stop" sign, and its easy for the reader to go the the next line because the lines are left-aligned. If images are on the left, the line starts vary, and the readers has to search. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've go several articles to GA, all have images only on the right, and reviewers have found no problem - and some of these reviewers also write and review for FA. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
GA does not require images to go left and right, so I accept the image placement. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The free URL for "Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions" has been killed, and is not in the Internet Archive. I've removed the free URL - damn, it was OK when I nominated (seems it died 3 Jul 2011). --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
New URL for "Prey preferences of Portia labiata, P. africana, and P. schultzi, araneophagic jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and Uganda"
The server for "Jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) that feed on nectar" is slightly unreliable, but works sometimes, so I'll keep the URL. --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Let's bring this GAN to a close. A month is long enough to hash out the changes and get the edits done. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
If there's still many outstanding concerns then the article should just be failed per your note. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I regret to say I think you are right. The article was so close to being GA but the last step was not taken. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Not done This GAN is closed for inactivity. I look forward to seeing it listed again after some quick improvements. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Not done This GAN is closed for inactivity. I look forward to seeing it listed again after some quick improvements. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)