Talk:Phaeacius/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are a number of comments, in no particular order. Some are desirable changes, rather than requirements, but others fall under criterion 3. I'd prefer only to rate it against those criteria once my initial comments have been addressed. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be an awful lot of material that refers to the whole family, not just to this genus. Some background is necessary, but there seems to be too much focus on the capabilities of the family as a whole, beyond that dealing with the subject of the article. For example:

  Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs. Unlike most arthropods, spiders have no extensor muscles in their limbs and instead extend them by increasing their blood pressure. Jumping spiders can leap up to 50 times their own length by powerfully extending the third or fourth pairs of legs, reaching up to 200 millimetres (7.9 in) with the forelimbs extended to grasp the prey. Their scientific name, Salticidae, is based on the Latin saltus, meaning "a leap".

  All this is very good material for the article jumping spider, but its relevance here is limited. Can Phaeacius jump 200 mm, or does that apply only to other genera? Give the etymology of Phaeacius, rather than that of Salticidae. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we should look this case by case. The sources, mainly Comparative biology of jumping spiders Portia africana, P. albimana, P. fimbriata, P. labiata and P. schultzi, areanophagic, web-building jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) utilisation of webs, predatory versatility, and intraspecfic interactions, take a hierarchical approach: features are inherited from higher taxa unless specifically countermanded. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs" is useful for readers, as many will only see web-builders, which often have long, spindly legs. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed "Unlike most arthropods, spiders have no extensor muscles in their limbs and instead extend them by increasing their blood pressure." --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Jumping spiders can leap up to 50 times their own length ..." is important. Phaeacius′ uses this power in its explosive lunge, and sometimes jumps when it goes actively hunting after having no food for over a week. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I moved "Their scientific name, Salticidae, is based on the Latin saltus, meaning "a leap" to "Taxonomy". --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• For a genus found in India and Sri Lanka but not in the United States, Commonwealth English is the appropriate variant of English ("defense" => "defence", "molt" => "moult", "-ize" => "-ise", "maneuver" => "manoeuvre", "practise" => "practice", etc.). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Mostly I agreed - and the principal sources use UK English. I've checked as far as I can - is there a tool? But the OED gives "-ize" (e.g. "organize). Thanks goodness the article uses the noun "practice", as OED gives "practise" for the verb. --Philcha (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you put an Edit Note on this article, like the one at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where Randy in Boise keeps Americanizing (with a zee) the title. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the fact that the OED uses "-ize" is annoying. Everyone else uses "-ise". I think an edit notice isn't necessary unless someone starts edit warring over spelling. I think that's unlikely here. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
      • "-ise" as used by the authors or editor (New Zealand Journal of Zoology) of Predatory versatility and intraspecies interactions of spartaeine jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae): Brettus adonis, B. cingulata, Cyrba algerina, and Phaeacius sp. indet. - "specialised" at p. 491 & 516. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Phaeacius is rarely found in museums because it is very well camouflaged." I assume this means that, since it is well camouflaged, it is rarely collected, and so there are few museum specimens. "Phaeacius is rarely found ... because it is very well camouflaged." could apply anywhere, not just in museums. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We already know that the camouflage fools other jumping spiders. I think "Phaeacius is rarely found in museums because it is very well camouflaged" is amusing in an otherwise technical article, and it hints that difficulty getting specimens also hamper research. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• A photo of a real Phaeacius would be great. There are a lot of images on Flickr, but none under an appropriate licence. Perhaps ask the photographers if they would release a picture or two under a usable licence. (I see you've also made notes about a possible image at malaeng.com.) A photo isn't necessary for a GA pass, I should add, but it would be a big improvement to the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo at malaeng.com is easily the best - and will be a good puzzle for readers. The people at malaeng.com have told that the photographer gave permission for malaeng.com to use it, and I've emailed the site from which it came. I really do want this one, but it may take time.--Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the Taxonomy section, list the 12 species and state which is the type species. (Has it been divided into subgenera? Have other species been included in the past?) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've listed the 12 species. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've given which is the type species. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Subgenera, after your objection to subfamily? More seriously, see main page of WikiProject Spiders - "Not long ago the spiders were the most neglected of the most interesting animals..." (Theodore Horace Savory, 1962) - and researchers are still playing catchup. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re "Have other species been included in the past", I expect synonyms and misidentifications have been common, but do not see the usefulness to general readers - unless they make a vivid point, as at Maevia inclemens, and that is a species-level article. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done OK, I was just wondering in case there had been recent or significant taxonomic changes. If not, that's fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Given the references in the Distribution section, they are not needed in the lead. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the refs for the geographic regions. And I don't like refs in the lead either. But editors, including reviewers, have asked for refs for strong claims and for numbers, which I think means all the phrases about vision. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unlink "insinuation". --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Someone doesn't understand the difference between "insinuation" and "innuendo". --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The URL for Forster (1977a) (doi:10.1080/03014223.1977.9517936) is broken. Including DOIs isn't strictly a GA requirement, but again, would be very helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. The ********s vary the URL dynamically, so one has to go via DOI through the abstract and that has adverts. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove the leading whitespace – never leave an empty line after {{italic title}}. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back, I need a rest. --Philcha (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Some good work has been done, but I still think the text lacks focus. There are still too many sentences dealing with other taxa. It may be possible to make some of them more directly relevant by changing openings like "Jumping spiders are..." to "Jumping spiders such as Phaeacius are..." or "Like other jumping spiders, Phaeacius is..." Other sentences may need to be removed entirely. Doing this may also reveal problems of referencing; just because something is true in at least one species of salticid, that doesn't mean that it's true of Phaeacius. In the lead, for instance, it is claimed that the eyes of "salticids including Phaeacius [are] 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's". The reference doesn't back this up. It states simply that the eyes of Portia are that acute. I don't doubt that Phaeacius is likely to have similar visual acuity to other salticids, but that needs to be demonstrated by a reference before using data from other taxa to make claims about Phaeacius (ideally one that mentions Phaeacius by name, rather than one discussing "all salticids" or somesuch). In some cases, removal of material seems to me to be the best option. For instance, I would change:

Almost all jumping spiders are predators, mostly preying on insects, on other spiders, and on other arthropods. Most jumping spiders walk throughout the day, so that they maximise their chances of a catch. However, Phaeacius is unusually sedentary for a jumping spider,...

to the more straightforward:

Phaeacius is unusually sedentary for a jumping spider,...

This is focussed on the taxon in question, but still makes the point that other jumping spiders are more active. Later on in the text, "Phaeacius does not use the usual hunting tactics" is followed by a relatively long description of the usual hunting tactics of salticids, even though we have just learnt that they don't apply here. This frequent problem of straying from the topic is the only outstanding issue preventing this article becoming GA, but it will take a fair amount of effort to remedy. The article is otherwise well-referenced, stable, neutral and suitably illustrated, as far as I can see. I'm in no hurry; take your time. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've condensed it a bit and slightly restructured section "Hunting tactics". --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• IMO what's left is needed to show how unusual Phaeacius, which requires comparisons with jumping spiders and especially with close relatives such as Portia, an effective raider of other spiders' webs. --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I know you don't like subfamily Spartaeinae, but it's all over the source (p.491, etc.). Distinctive characters include: middle pair of secondary eyes almost as large as the other secondary eye, and fully functional (in more derived jumping spiders the middle pair are vestigial); Spartaeinae lunge rather than jump on prey; most Spartaeinae enter other spiders's webs easily - Phaeacius′ incompetence with webs is exceptional among spartaeines. --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reviewing, but I do now believe that the article matches all the standards for good articles. I have re-read the article this morning, and feels much more focussed now. The weakest side is the use of images, but I can see that none are available yet, and that you are working on that. Congratulations. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)