Talk:Agelenopsis pennsylvanica

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.

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): Salazarjhan. Peer reviewers: Akwan826, Keremyucebas, Shutaro.hayashihara.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sections
All the change I've done so far in the order and name of each section and subsection have been based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/Article_formats


 * That page is not a proposal or guideline of WP:SPIDERS, but the opinion of one editor. There has been no consensus or discussion. If you look at spider articles, you'll see that there is no consensus on the ordering of the material, unfortunately.
 * For an example of a featured article, i.e. one approved by the community, see Redback spider.
 * The general approach of WP:ANIMALS is to have Taxonomy first, then Description, then Distribution and habitat, then other sections. In practice, articles within the scope of many animal wikiprojects (and WP:PLANTS) seem to reverse Description and Taxonomy.
 * One issue with the article as currently structured is that the some sections are too short and should be merged, but this may change if the article is expanded. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Student Peer Edit
I thought your page was very well-written and easy to understand. Some of the things you could consider changing are: The entry paragraph of the reproduction and life cycle section is a little confusing. Especially when you talked about phenotypic plasticity. I think the average reader would have a hard time understanding what is meant. I would either expand on that phenomenon or omit it. Also, in the same section, there is a lot of comparison to how the spiders behaved in an experimental setting. I wasn’t sure if that was necessary information for a Wikipedia article. It might be a good idea to make a sub-header and talk about what was observed in the experiment separately.

Aside from these I made some minor grammatical changes, changed the order of the subtopics for better flow and added a few links (e.g. phenotypic plasticity, microbiota, ecosystem). Keremyucebas (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Student Peer Edit
This article was very well organized and had a variety of information. I thought the grammar and style were reminiscent of the "Good Article" standards, where they suggest writing in a "summary" style with clear and precise prose. The WikiSpiders article suggests adding a map to the Habitat and Distribution section, so I added a map of the USA to supplement that section. It helps readers contextualize and locate where the spider can be found. Related to images, Good Article suggests having lots of images with suitable captions. I noticed that the pictures did not have captions, so I added them in. I would also suggest including information on the sociality of the spider. Even if the spider is asocial, that is worth noting!. Another section that could be added is bites/venom. This information tends to be of interest to readers even if there are "no known dangers." To find this information, try looking at spiders in the same family or genus. Akwan826 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Student Peer Edit
Agelenopsis pennsylvanica

I think you have a really well written Wikipedia article with good information. One thing that I changed was terminology such as “in a study done by….” This is because I thought this wording was not very Wikipedia article friendly. I also edited some areas of sentence structure and bits of grammar to make the sentences flow a little better rather than it being a set of bullet points. Lastly, I thought some links were missing, such as “foraging” and “microbes” so I added them to make it easier for readers to understand the article. One comment of potential change that I had was the placement of the subheader “Sexual Cannibalism.” Although it is fine under the “reproduction and sex cycle” heading, it might be better if this is placed under behavior. Later on, you could potentially add more bits of mating behaviors and potentially create a whole section under “mating behavior” with “sexual cannibalism” as one of the subheaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shutaro.hayashihara (talk 03:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Student Peer Edit
I think this article is really strong and well on its way to reaching Good Article status. I think it clearly reaches all of the criteria. It is very well written. In order to help the writing, I went through and made some minor grammatical edits. Other than that, I think this is a very strong article. As always, adding more sections and/or more photos would help bring it to Good Article status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrisZW777 (talk 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions
Wow, this is an incredible article! You have done lots of research and there are an incredible range and volume of information within this article. While that is vital to get to good article status, it also leads to the main problem within the article. The article is very dense and the paragraphs are long. I tried to split some up and reorganize the reproduction section as best I could to help the article flow. I recommend further breaking apart these paragraphs into more detailed subsections, especially the mutualism section. --Dgoldblum (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Fellow student article feedback
This is a really good article, Jhan! I think it's full of useful and important information about A. pennsylvanica. I moved around some of the information, particularly in the Description and Introduction sections. I also got rid of one picture of the US which I didn't think the article needed, although I do think if you had a map of the US that included the distribution of the species, that could be quite useful. A few other suggestions I have are that your information is really good, but I think you want to be careful about not presenting it like it's a journal article. I edited your Mating and Courtship Ritual sections to take out references to specific researchers and the experiments they performed, and only kept the main findings of their studies, which are the important pieces of information that you want to include in the article for your readers. If you go through your article and make the same changes in other sections, I think it'll be a really good candidate for Good Article status!Shay bala (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)