Talk:Menemerus minshullae

Menemerus minshullae was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 18, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Africa: Malawi / South Africa / Zimbabwe Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Malawi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi (assessed as Low-importance).
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Zimbabwe (assessed as Low-importance).

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Unsuccessful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2026 (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.

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 08:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Written review

Images

Not a GA criterion, but recommend editing out the watermark on the one image per WP:WATERMARK
Not a GA criterion, but recommend adding ALTTEXT to assist readers with visual impairments

Prose and comprehensiveness

Are there any common names?
small to medium-sized spider -> small- to medium-sized spider, as both small and medium are part of a compound adjective
She described two species, one named Menemerus minshullae and the other Menemerus manicus, but further discoveries led to the realisation that the two were simply the female and male respectively of the same species and so the two were combined under the current name - Probably easier to parse as two sentences
The section on #Etymology looks like an WP:OVERSECTION issue, as there are only two short sentences. Merging into #Taxonomy is probably best.
Both are between 1.5 and 1.6 millimetres (0.059 and 0.063 in) wide. - Both feels like it could be ambiguous, as your first subject is "male" and your second subject is "cephalothorax"
the hard upper side of is cephalothorax, - Typo
"Its eye field is black, sometime with a metallic sheen, with occasional white hairs amongst the long brown hairs and brown bristles" and subsequent sentences are ambiguous. Your previous subject was the carapace of the female, but the subsequent sentence "The part of the spider's face known as its clypeus is low and also has white hairs" refers to both male and female specimens.
It has a lighter sternum than its carapace. - Potentially ambiguous; is the sternum of lighter colour, or is it less heavy? "Its sternum is lighter in colour than its carapace" would be clearer.
Where was the male holotype found?

Sourcing

Copyvio tool found no issues.
Reference check based on this version

4: Supported
9: Can you provide a quote for this offline source?
13a: Supported
20: Can you provide a quote for this offline source?
25: I'm not seeing support for Africa in this source (and the pagination is wrong; page 3 offers views of a spider found in Brazil rather than discuss the range).

Verdict

Seems to be mostly there. I'll put this on hold while awaiting some feedback. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, after ten days this item has seen no movement. The nominator has been inactive for almost a month at this point, so I will fail this nomination for now. Feel free to let me know if you renominate, so that I can return to it. I do believe this is basically there, but unfortunately without access to the offline sources I can't ensure that all of the criteria are met. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2026 (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.