Talk:Stenaelurillus guttiger

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stenaelurillus guttiger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Grabbing this article, will have a full review out within the next day or so. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• Sources all appear to be reasonably reliable.
• All provided source links are still live

Copy-vios

• Earwig flags citations mainly, nothing of note here
• I made a handful of spotchecks, will likely make more, nothing of particular note.

Images

• One image from the commons, rights are in order

Prose

• Merge It was first described in 1901 by Eugène Simon. with First found in South Africa, it has also been seen in Botswana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. These two sentences don't flow well on their own.
  • Merged. I have also reordered some of the lead to hopefully help the flow.
• It is a very diverse species arguably WP:PUFFERY, in general this is a rather vague term
  • Clarified.
• It is distinguished by the design of its sexual organs. Clarify, distinguished between sexes or other species? If it's the difference between sexes, then it goes without saying that they'll have different sexual organs.
  • Clarified.
• name Aelurillines What taxonomic group is this? Is this a colloquialism?
  • It is a group of genera. The term seems to be very common in the literature.
• However, the species shows an unusually high variation in colouration "However?" Is this atypical?
  • Removed.
• This does not seem to be a geographical variation and, for example, males with different colour palpal bulbs and legs often live in the same area Sentence needs to be cleaned up.
  • Altered.
• dark brown, yellowish brown to brown or brown to dark brown Please clean up, I'm getting lost in the colours.
  • Rearranged and edited.
• It is differentiated from other members of the genus by its sexual organs. Repetitive info, covered in more detail later on.
  • Removed.
• but sometimes simpler Clarify
  • Clarified.
• For example, some examples have a single stripe and two spots on the abdomen. Reword, clarify
  • Clarified.
• It produces a specialised venom that is dedicated for its prey Can you expand on this? This implies multiple times of venom for different prey species.
  • Some spiders have more general-purpose venom.
• Both adults and juveniles have been studied What purpose does this sentence have? I assume you mean that adults and juveniles have been observed in these regions.
  • Removed.

---

Just a few things that need clean-up before passing. The prose is a bit choppy but that isn't a GA issue. I also did some CE's to the page, please review my edits when you can. I took a brief look at online sources, I am not seeing anything that immediately sticks out as missing from the article. All-in-all, a short but sweet arachnid page. On Hold till 5/03. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Etriusus: Thank you for your very prompt review. Your edits look excellent and inspired me to look at some of the grammar again. Hopefully I have improved it and addressed your concerns. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Made some minor edits. Page meets GA standard, passing. Great job as always!!!

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.