Talk:Phintella parva

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:Phintella parva/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that comments raised in the previous GA review (GA1) have not been addressed (most of them language errors and simple typos). Please resolve those issues first. Then, please have a careful read looking for obvious spelling/grammar issues, missing spaces etc (I see several errors already at first glance, e.g. It was , one of over 500 species that she identified by over her career). When done, please ping me and I am happy to review this in-depth. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you for picking this up. Unfortunately the review (GA1) was archived by the reviewer before I could make any comments. Nonetheless, I believe that all the necessary changes have been made, along with other small amendments as you note. I look forward to your comments. simongraham (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. I now had a careful look at the article and the sources. The sources generally support the text, and the article seems carefully researched. The main problem is the language, which has multiple issues, sometimes leading to factual errors (examples below). I decided that I will not loose time listing this all here; instead I am going to do a copy edit myself. However, before I can do that, I ask you to resolve a couple of issues listed below that are not related to language:

• The first recorded siting in Haeju was in 1987, followed by Chongjin, Hongwon County, Kaesong and Kyongsong County in 1990. The spider was also found in the areas around Mount Kumgang at the same time. – The source only gives a list of specimens with date. It does not explicitly state that the Haeju one was the "first" of anything. This, therefore, would fall under WP:Synth (we should only state what the sources actually say, not making our own interpretations of the data). The reason is that it is very easy to make a mistake (the source does not state that the list is exhaustive).
  • Amended.

• Subsequent identifications have shown that the species also lives outside the Korean peninsula – You cite here the first description of 1981. This is therefore not a "subsequent identification", as previous identifications could not possibly have identified the species as it did not exist prior 1981.
  • Amended.

• It was later seen that the spider also lived on Furugelm Island. – So it is extinct there now?
  • The sources do not comment on its current status. They only state that it was living on the island at the time.

• Primorsky Krai, in what is now Russia, – it was always Russia during the years that you discuss, right?
  • It was called the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union at the time. Clarified.

• The species name is the Latin word for small. – The "species name" is the whole thing, Phintella parva. You are referring to the second part of the species name, known as the specific name.
  • Amended and linked.

• based on a holotype – "the" holotype, since there is only one.
  • Amended.

• Phintella parva is known as 묘향깡충거 미 (Myo-hyang-kkang-chung-geo-mi) in Korea. – You should name and link the language here (is it Korean?).
  • Named and linked.

• The genus name derives from the genus Phintia due to the similarities between the two genera – Any information on what the different ending means? And what does Phintia mean to start with? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The sources do not say. According to pages 147 and 148 of Bentley[1], it is the name of various cities mentioned by Diodorus, Pliny and Ptolemy. One is these seems likely to be the modern Licata. However, I do not see any source linking the two. If know of one, I would appreciate a pointer. simongraham (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Some more comments

• Phintella parva (Korean: 묘향깡충거 미, lit. 'Myo-hyang-kkang-chung-geo-mi') – the brackets suggest that they contain a translation or explanation of the bolded species name, but the Korean name has nothing to do with it. I suggest to remove it from the lead (having it under taxonomy is enough), OR make a separate sentence out of it.
  • Removed.
• It was also recognised that other examples of the spider had been previously collected, including, at one time, a description published without a species name. – This sentence is too vague and unspecific. Who? When?
  • Expanded.
• yellow with brown lines around the sides. – What does this mean? Sides of what?
  • Clarified.
• chevrons – needs link.
  • Happy to add. I looked at the chevron disambiguation page and it is not clear to me which would be the most appropriate page to link. I would appreciate your guidance.
• and straight and tibial apophysis – what is this supposed to mean?
  • It has an extraneous "and". Removed.
• I just see that the taxonbox image is not actually this species. The image should be moved out of the taxonbox for this reason, maybe placed outside it, but it might be better to remove it entirely as people will assume it is Phintella parva without reading the caption carefully.
  • Removed.
• That should be everything now. I did a copy edit to help you to solve the language issues: [2]. It is important that you check my edits carefully for accuracy; sometimes I was just guessing what you want to say, but I could have been wrong. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I am very happy with your edits. Generally, I feel that they enhance the article even if, like changing "has a length of ..." to "is ... in length", some may not be needed to meet the GA criteria. simongraham (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you for the changes. They look good, and I can promote this now. Congrats! Regarding your question how to handle the term "chevron": It looks like we don't have an article on that yet. In that case, it would be best to add a brief in-text explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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.