Talk:Evarcha denticulata/GA1

Passed. OceanGunfish (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 08:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OceanGunfish (talk · contribs) 02:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm OceanGunfish and I will be reviewing this article! I am trying to become a more experienced GAN reviewer so please let me know if I make any mistakes or if anything I do is nonstandard.

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	a species of jumping spider in the genus Evarcha that is endemic to South Africa Consider breaking this into two sentences, with a period after the genus name. Right now it sounds like the entire genus is endemic to South Africa. Reworded. The spinnerets are dark too. This sounds a little informal. Maybe "The spinnerets are also dark"? Reworded following the suggestion. a tooth sticking out near the bottom This also struck me as informal. Something like "a tooth protruding from the bottom" might sound better. Reworded following the suggestion. The male's copulatory organs are distinctive. and later, The female copulatory organs are distinctive. Can you rephrase one of these sentences to break up the repetition? Reworded. those found in North America may be accidental migrants Can you add a brief explanation for how a South African spider might end up in North America? This phrasing alone could imply that they’re migratory. Explanation added. in Eastern Cape and in Western Cape I believe these should read "in the Eastern Cape" and "in the Western Cape". This occurs in the Description and habitat section as well as the image caption. Added. There is a comma instead of a period at the end of the third-to-last sentence (the one that ends with above sea level). Fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot-checked refs: 1, 3, 4, 16, 19, 20 all OK
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig score is 25.9%, indicating Violation unlikely. It primarily picks up on titles of works in the references.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The second paragraph in the Taxonomy section feels like a bit of a tangent more appropriate for the Evarcha page, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. I have reduced the text down but feel it is important to give the context, particularly the relationship that the spider has with those that look similar. Please tell me if you feel that this is sufficient to provide the context.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major changes in eight months.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is appropriately tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Thank you for your contributions. I really enjoyed learning about this species. I have outlined a few things to take a look at on our way to passing this article. OceanGunfish (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@OceanGunfish Thank you for your kind comments and clear review. I believe I have made the changes you have asked for and have also added a few other referenced facts, including the common name and conservation status of the species. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I made a couple little copy edits to the image caption and one of the new passages. The article is now

Passed! OceanGunfish (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2025 (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.

Talk:Evarcha denticulata/GA1

GA review

Related Articles