Talk:Redback spider/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esoxid (talk · contribs) 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Gave it a few initial reads, but I'll go more in depth. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for choosing to review this. --99of9 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review table

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.	Prose: ok; Copyright: looks ok; Spelling: ok; Grammar: ok
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ok; Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; Fiction: N/A; Lists: N/A
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.	Ref layout: ok
	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).	Ok
	2c. it contains no original research.	Ok
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Everything appears to be covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Presented in NPOV
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No rapid changes or edit wars
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 under Creative Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All ok
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes GA review

Comments

• In the lead I have a few minor concerns. Very technical terms should be briefly described per WP:MOSINTRO, even if they are wikilinked. Specifically spermathecae would be better with a short description like, a female reproductive organ found on the leg, or something to that effect. Latrodectism is probably fine with the part about causing severe pain. The sentence "Populations can be controlled by squashing these sacs, killing the adult spiders and removing litter" feels really out of place being in the lead. Moving it into a body section would read better. Another concern in the lead is the sentence "The redback is one of the most dangerous species of spider." The only mention of how deadly is in the Toxicology, which only mentions Australia: "Redback venom is considered the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider." For that bold claim it needs to be backed up in the body. The citation in the body does not specifically mention it being compared to only Australian spiders, but the title of the article implies it. I think an additional source is necessary to say it is one of the most dangerous species of spiders (which implies in the world), since that could be challenged per section 2b.

I have removed sentence which veers into how-to territory from the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bookmarking link which claims one of the most dangerous in the world. Will keep pondering this.--99of9 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that page talks about the genus (rather than species) as being one of the most dangerous and it is not clear why - but mentions "many countries" in sentences below. I wonder if there is work on the comparative toxicity of lactrodectus species with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another paragraph says: "In summary, on current evidence the most dangerous spiders in the world are funnel-web spiders (Atrax and Hadronyche species), Redback Spiders and their relations (Latrodectus species), Banana Spiders (Phoneutria species) and Recluse Spiders (Loxosceles species)." which I think squarely includes the redback. --99of9 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be sufficient to keep that statement in the lead if it were to be addressed in the body and cited from your link. It sums up my concern too, since the body goes into the dangers and toxicity of the redback, but doesn't compare it to other spiders, which like it said will depend on how you define dangerous. Once that is done, and the technical term is briefly defined, I think it should be good. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that it isn't quite clear on the context - i.e. more because of the numbers of people bitten and how common these spiders are. Truth be told, if I were bitten by a redback I'd be way less worried than if I were bitten by a funnelweb or even a white-tailed spider (my wife spent two days in hospital on IV antibiotics thanks to one of those to avoid the necrosis!) - and I worry that the statement as it stands blurs the degrees of dangerousness. I am sure there will be some more detailed discussion of comparisons. I think that counting six genera as "most dangerous" is not a good use of a superlative adjective and that "more dangerous" or "more hazardous" is a better - or "one of the six most dangerous genera" I could accept I guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When was she bitten? Apparently the necrosis thing from white-tailed spiders was studied and debunked in 2003 (see White-tailed spider), so it's lower down the list than redback. Pretty much everyone puts the funnel-web higher on the danger list, and I agree with that, although I was interested to find out that redback venom was worse per unit volume. Within lactodectrus, I get the impression that the redback is not the worst (black widow has 5% mortality), but nor is it too far off, because some of them never kill. I think six genera is ok as "the most dangerous spiders" list, because there are ~40,000 spider species total. But on the other hand I'm fine with your alternative terms too. --99of9 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

ok, I added it like this - long story on her bite - will tell at next meetup.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Great. I've also added the plain language spermathecae. --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The image within the Prey section would be better placed directly above it for ease of reading. The way it is positioned now, it's easy to miss that section heading. I'll go ahead and do that as a minor edit and mark as done.

 Done Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• For consistency the Parasitoids and prey section heading and body text should mirror the order. The way it is now, prey is discussed first in the body. I don't think that would fail anything in the GA review, just a suggestion.

 Done 99of9 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 22, http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/spiders/Redback-habitat.asp is dead, which appears important for this sentence: "Redbacks usually prey on insects, but can capture larger animals that become entangled in the web, including king crickets, trapdoor spiders, and small lizards." Browsing that site, this may be the new page, but the text is a bit different. http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Find+out+about/Animals+of+Queensland/Spiders/Modern+Spiders+Infraorder+Araneomorphae/Redback+and+Brown+Widow+spiders/Redback+Spider

 Done I've switched the ref to the Australian Museum, which has almost exactly those words under "Feeding and Diet". --99of9 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence under the Web section gives the impression that this has been documented more than once. "Rare observations suggest that they occasionally utilize dead leaves to construct a more enclosed nest.[21]" The citation only gives one account, so I think at least 1 more citation would justify the wording, or change the wording to reflect a single observation.

 Done Another citation added. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per section 2b, I think this source would be a good addition in case the one that's there, 35, is challenged since it only lists a conference and no text. It's a brief interview with the author of the work that was cited from that conference. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Underage+spiders%3A+males+show+unexpected+interest+in+young+mates.-a0151188421

 Done Thanks for the ref, I hadn't seen that. I've put in the official publication details and link, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. Is there a simple way to add a second link to TheFreeLibrary.com? Maybe as I would a webarchive in {{cite web}}? --99of9 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)