Talk:Schizocosa ocreata

Schizocosa ocreata was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 6, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Untitled

This article was created by the bot Qbugbot. For more information, see User:Qbugbot/info. For questions and comments, leave a message at User:Qbugbot/talk.

I thought that this article had a significant amount of detailed information! I italicized all of the scientific names throughout the article, embedded links on less well-known words, fixed some small typos, removed some unnecessary commas, and split up a couple run-on sentences. I moved the Overview section up to the Lead Section, since this is often what determines if the viewer will continue reading and catch their attention. I specified where in North America they are found. Under Webs, I added an explanation of "exploitative competition." Under Mate searching behavior, I included more information on cuticular hydrocarbons. Under Physiology, I added further explanation on hydraulic locomotion. Mlschoening (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikispiders11. Peer reviewers: Mlschoening, Shutaro.hayashihara, Salazarjhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Edit

I thought this was a really solid Wikipedia article with really well written descriptions. I added some links on words such as “tufts” and “amputation” so that readers could better understand the article. I made the header “mating behavior” instead of just “mating” as the content, such as sexual cannibalism was very behavioral. I added some grammatical errors such as “the coercive and the cooperative ways” and edited minor errors such as “ways of fighting different prey off as well” instead of predator. I removed “animals” from the “bites” header as it only included bites to humans. Overall I thought your article was very solid. One thing that could be changed is “social behavior.” A lot of the points written in that section appears to be equally relatable to mating behavior so the information under this subheader could be moved to mating behavior. shutaro.hayashihara (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Student Edit

I really like your entry; it is really well organized! I feel that this could be a “Good article” if you include more information in each of your sections. I have some suggestions: I went through your references and I realized they do not have the link to the website in which they are available online; in you last reference of the first section I show you an example of how to do it for you other references (see reference number 6 of your entry). I made some minor grammatical changes; I really like the way is written. Also, you should add the map of the distribution of this species, you say in your leading section that it is found in North America, but I’m not sure you mean that it is found also in Canada and Mexico or only in the US. Salazarjhan (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2020 (CST)

Stating family twice

This edit adds duplicate specification of which family the species belongs to. We should not specify twice in the first sentence which family the species belongs to. Duplicate statements is almost allways wrong, especially in the very first sentence. Adding the scientific name of the family does not add information about the species. Wikipedia has an article about this family. It is named wolf spider. This means that the Wikipedia view is that that is the most natural name for it. The edit comment Most readers won't known the family name for wolf spiders, which is why it is stated, is therefore irrelevant. It is a personal view that is in contradiction with the Wikipedia view. --Ettrig (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the family article may currently be at the imprecise vernacular name, that does not mean it is the only name that it should be referenced by. especially considering that "wolf spider" is not a precise name at all. as has been noted elsewhere, there is a major difference between brevity and conciseness. Stating the scientific name is being concise and not being duplicitous. Also it is false to say that "wikipedia" considers that the most natural name of the family. it only means the placement has not been questioned.--Kev min § 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a look at this article. Since this nomination appears to be the result of a Wiki Ed class, I'll just make a few preliminary comments for now. If you're still willing to work on the article, just respond to the comments and I'll keep on reviewing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

There are several short paragraphs of two or three sentences. If possible, I would recommend either expanding them or merging them with nearby paragraphs.
There are a few body paragraphs (e.g. in the "Molting" section) that lack citations but would seem to require them.
You use the phrase "it was found" five times. According to MOS:WEASEL, it's preferable to be a bit more specific, like "According to biologist Mary Smith..." or "A 2016 study by arachnologists John Smith and Jane Johnson found..."

Once these issues are addressed, I'll have more to say. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another ping, Wikispiders11, just in case the first notifications didn't go through. Let me know if you're still interested in working on this; otherwise I'll close the review in a few days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I'll have to fail this nomination because there's been no engagement. (The nominator edited as part of a Wiki Ed class and has not been active in months.) The article really isn't all that far from GA status, so I hope that other contributors continue to improve it.

1a: The article could be written somewhat more formally (e.g. cut "you" and the contractions), but that's probably not a dealbreaker. A WP:GOCE/REQ copy-edit would likely be useful in ironing out the occasional typo.
1b: The phrase "was found" is used five times. This is a weasel wording; the article ought to say when/by whom each fact was found. The information on melanization is found only in the lead; it should also appear in the body per MOS:LEAD. (It also needs a citation.)
2a: Pass
2b: Four paragraphs lack citations entirely.
2c: Pass
2d: Pass
3a: Numerous paragraphs and sections are very short, suggesting to me that some necessary content is lacking. While I needn't decide one way or the other, future contributors are encouraged either to consolidate these paragraphs or to expand them
3b: Pass
4: No apparent issues
5: Pass
6a: No apparent issues
6b: Pass

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Hi, I will make these changes this week. Wikispiders11 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]