Talk:Afraflacilla refulgens

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do a full look through this soon. As an initial comment, behaviour should be summarised in the lead, and perhaps the lead could be two paragraphs for a bit more readability. There is one image, licensed as own work, but I am not sure it should be included as it seems to be a different species? At the least, the caption needs to explain a bit further the similarities. Perhaps the article could also use an external link to something like this for images. CMD (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• I feel that single paragraph leads are generally preferable as they are much easier for mobile readers. I have added a See also section.

In addition to above:

• The links from "eye field" to spider vision (lead and Description) feel like an WP:EGG, and the term is not mentioned at that page.
  • Link removed and moved to eyes.
• "The genus is a member of the tribe Heliophaninae", should this be past tense?
  • Changed.
• "A year later, in 2016," implies the genus change was related to the tribe renaming. If it was, how?
  • It was not. Removed.
• Is this "group of genera" above or below a tribe?
  • It seems to be an alternative way of looked at the taxa.
• The final sentence of Taxonomy, "The species is named...", might be better placed in the first paragraph, perhaps immediately after "...the name Pseudicius refulgens" (tweaking the sentence after that). This links the species name with the initial description, and provides a species->genus->tribe->subfamily flow. It also feels very close in structure to the source, it could do with rewriting.
  • Moved and reworded.
• Could combine "It has distinctive copulatory organs. It has a..." into one sentence, "It has distinctive copulatory organs and an..."
  • Sentences joined together.
• "The spider rubs its front legs against a row of fine hairs on the side of the carapace" could end with the result of said rubbing, presumably some sort of sound.
  • I would expect so but the sources do not say.
• "The female can be identified by the way that there is an elevated section to the back of the epigyne." Could this be tweaked?
  • Reworded.
• "summer and winter retreats," anywhere this can be linked to?
  • Unfortunately I cannot find one.
• "They are most numerous in the dry season." Why? Do they mostly die during the wet season?
  • Unfortunately the sources do not say.
• "The spiders lower themselves from upper branches on long threads of silk" reads as Behaviour rather than Distribution and habitat.
  • Moved.

Source spot checks

• Following a closer look at the 2008 paper, stuck on the article's "The species is similar to others in the genus, many of which were also previously allocated to the genus Pseudicius". The paper's "A distinctive species" is a very technical read, and the article's "species is similar to others in the genus" derives from the distinctiveness being attributed solely to the copulatory organs, and thus being similar otherwise? If so, that is fine, but I would think another source is still needed for the "many of which were also previously allocated to the genus Pseudicius" part.
  • Added a reference and reworded.
• "They can be distinguished from other jumping spiders by their flattened and elongated body and characteristic colour patterns." Could you clarify this interpretation of the source, from my reading the difference is the "lateral subocular row of stridulatory spines". Also, could "They" be clarified as it is ambiguous whether the article refers to the genus of the group of genera.
  • I find these confusing too. Amended.
• "The spider has stridulatory apparatus that is typical for the genus. The spider rubs its front legs against a row of fine hairs on the side of the carapace." How do we get information about this species being typical from a source prior to the species being described? A similar question for Richman & Jackson 1992, describing the general patterns of jumping spiders as hunters seems fine, but the sentence on using silk feels far more specific.
  • The comments on silk are all in Wesołowska & Cumming 2008 on page 212. The comment from Wesołowska & van Harten 1994 is on the operation of the stridulatory apparatus, which is lacking in the later sources. Hopefully that is now clearer.
• Wesołowska & Cumming 2008 and Prószyński 2017 otherwise check out. Uses of World Spider Catalog 2022 check out. Overall well-written, with technical jargon often wikilinked. Seems to cover the material in the sources. No neutrality issues found. Stable. CMD (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for this excellent review. Please do look at my amendments and tell me if there is anything else you would like me to do. simongraham (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Amendments and explanations are great, aside from those prevented by "the sources do not say", always a disappointment to encounter in a GAN. Nothing jumps out in another read through, a nice little spider. CMD (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, CMD. That is very kind. I very much appreciate your comments and help promoting this to a GA. simongraham (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)