Talk:Pachyballus miniscutulus

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:Pachyballus miniscutulus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright let's do this; article looks pretty good on a first sweep, here are my more detailed comments: Fritzmann (message me) 19:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose

• I looked at some other spider articles, and it doesn't seem like "lives in" is particularly commonly used. Phrases like "is native to" or "is found in" look like the norm.
  • Amended.
• I'd move the description/taxonomy information to the back end of the lead; form my experience that has less importance to the reader than description or habitat.
  • Added habitat and moved the information on its taxonomy and discovery to the end.
• Speaking of habitat, a mention of that in the lead would likely be warranted
  • Added.
• "scutum is recalled" perhaps something like "referenced"?
  • Changed.
• Recommend spelling out that the Latin words that make up the specific epithet are mini and scutulus, perhaps with links to wiktionary (not required)
  • Added.
• Who is this Simon that established Pachyballus?
  • Eugène Simon, as linked in the previous paragraph. First name added.
• The taxonomy section seems to be entirely about the genus; I don't really see where it ties into the species. Most of this seems to be too detailed for this article, and should probably be upmerged to the genus article (which could use the information). Perhaps just keep a sentence or two of summary and add information about where P. miniscutulus fits into the generic framework
  • I have removed some of the text on the genus. However, there does not seem to be information in the literature on how the species fits into the generic framework but rather more on how the genus relates to other genera, some of which look very different, than other species. This feature seems unusual for jumping spiders, many of which are described as indistinguishable in the literature.
• "specimens being misidentified" ?
  • Amended.
• I notice the abdomen is linked as opisthosoma; are these the same things in spider anatomy?
  • I understand that is the case. Both terms seem to be used interchangeably in the descriptions of other species.
• "The spider's first pair of legs while the remainder are a lighter brown. All have brown leg hairs" I think this section may be missing a few words.
  • Added.
• Is there any information for why the species took so long to be identified and described after it was first found?
  • Added.
• I made some minor copyediting changes; please revert if you see that I introduced any errors.
  • That all looks good. Thank you.

Referencing

• Ref 2 confirms she authored over 500 species
• Ref 12 says that specimens have been treated as immature, but doesn't mention that they were of other species.
  • Removed.
• Ref 13 confirms the yellow legs & pedipalps
• Ref 17 confirms the other distribution

Thanks for the article! Let me know when you've responded to my points. Fritzmann (message me) 19:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: Thank you for this very helpful review. I believe I have made the amendments that are needed. Please tell me if there is anything more. simongraham (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

simongraham, looks great! Promoting now. Fritzmann (message me) 13:22, 16 September 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.