Talk:Agelenopsis pennsylvanica/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Review 1
Hello, I'll be your reviewer for this article. Hopefully I will be able to thoroughly start the review later today. I'll be following the Good Article Criteria pretty closely, so I apologize in advance if I am a bit verbose. I'll make a lot of suggestions, but will do my best to notate what is personal preference and what needs to be fixed for GA. If there are a lot of minor copyediting issues I'll go through and proofread those, but otherwise it'll be on you as nominator to polish the article based on the review. Are there any notes or things I should know before I get started? Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 15:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * btw, are you an editor of this page? If not that's okay, it just may mean there are some issues with it that you may not be as keenly aware of. I looked at the page history and it doesn't appear that you've edited it as of yet. As a heads up, the GA process will probably require a decent amount of knowledge on the subject matter of the article, but if you think that won't be a problem then it isn't an issue with me. I just wanted to check in to see whether or not you are somewhat familiar with the GA process and will be able to implement the corrections necessary. Fritzmann (message me) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am not, but I think I will be able to do this since I have a decent amount of knowledge about spiders just in general. Kline &#124; yes? 18:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * for full transparency, I am referencing the articles Cyrtophora citricola and Zygoballus sexpunctatus in my review. Both are well-established spider GAs. Z. sexpuctatus is kind of like a minimum (it's rather old and could probably use a GAR), while C. citricola looks to be a very solid GA, and the ultimate goal. I recommend that when implementing fixes, especially to prose and content, you also take a look at these articles and try to use them as a guideline. Fritzmann (message me) 11:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've completed another section of the review. As a note, a question mark means that there is something which should be fixed, but is either personal preference, not explicitly tied to the good article criteria, or is somewhat vague on my part. For those points, I would love feedback from you on your thoughts. A green check mark (✅) means that the item is all good, or has been fixed, and is in line with the criteria. A red X (❌) is not a bad thing - it means there is an item which can be fixed without too much difficulty! Each one is an opportunity to improve the article, but they are pretty necessary. Input on these is welcome as well, but a simple note when the issues are addressed is also sufficient. Fritzmann (message me) 02:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Illustrations

 * ✅All of the images in the article are properly licensed and are all free use. There are no issues with criterion 6a.
 * ✅All of the images in the article are appropriate and topical, and all have proper captions. There are no issues with criterion 6b.
 * If possible, however, it would help the article a great deal to have one to two more images which illustrate other aspects of the subject besides just full body shots. The images in the article are probably sufficient to pass the minimum for GA, but before the end of the review I'd ask the nominator to check if there are more images available which could be used. If there are, they should be added to the article.

Stability

 * ✅The article has not had edit wars or conflicts in recent times or which are ongoing. The article underwent a Wiki Education assignment about a year ago which looks to be entirely constructive. The article is stable and meets criterion 5.

Neutrality

 * ✅The article does not place undue weight on certain viewpoints. There is no apparent editorial bias. The article is neutral and meets criterion 4.

Verifiability

 * ❌ (reevaluated) Earwig detects no copyvio from the references present. Individual comparison corroborates that result. The article does not plagiarize and meets criterion 2d.
 * Copied material directly from an unlinked source is in the text. There is plagiarism in the article which needs to be resolved.
 * ✅There is a list of references in accordance with the style guide. The article meets criterion 2a.
 * Reference Reliability:
 * ✅ Ref 1 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 2 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * Ref 3 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article. However, the publication date in the article (1941) doesn't align with World Cat's publication date of 1999. If it was published in the year claimed by the article, the information is likely outdated and not the most reliable, as it is more than 80 years old.
 * ✅ Ref 4 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 5 is a reliable scientific article from a university
 * ✅ Ref 6 is a reliable scientific article from a university
 * ✅ Ref 7 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 8 is a reliable published book
 * Ref 9 is a reliable publication of the Smithsonian. However, the publication is from 1953, making it almost 70 years old. This leads to a concern that the information within it may be outdated. Are there more recent sources that could be used instead of or in supplement to this reference?
 * Ref 10 is a reliable published book. However, the publication date in the article (1928) doesn't align with Google Books (1971). Either way, this reference is also very old, at least 50 years, and its information has a likelihood to be out-of-date as well.
 * Ref 11 has the same issues as refs 3 and 10. The article says 1948 but Google Books says 1986. 1986 is more recent though so if that is in fact the correct date it isn't that big of a deal.
 * Ref 12 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article, however it is from 1977 which is rather also rather old. A similar issue to previous references, can you elaborate on why these sources are still accurate despite not being recent?
 * ✅ Ref 13 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 14 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 15 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 16 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * Ref 17 has the same issues as several previous sources. The article says 1965 but its source says 2012.
 * ✅ Ref 18 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article. I do not have access to the full article but will take it on good faith that its cited content is verifiable
 * ✅ Ref 19 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 20 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 21 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ✅ Ref 22 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article. I do not have access to the full article but will take it on good faith that its cited content is verifiable
 * ✅ Ref 23 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article. I do not have access to the full article but will take it on good faith that its cited content is verifiable
 * ✅ Ref 24 is a reliable peer-reviewed journal article
 * ❌Refs 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 should have links in their references, as there are online copies of all of these. This will improve the ability of the reader to verify content.
 * The reference style is consistent and aside from the links the references all have the necessary information for verifiability.

I am still reviewing the references in the text; the above is just checking their reliability in and of themselves. I will continue the review tomorrow by looking through the article to ensure all claims are properly cited, that there is no original research, and that the scientific citation guidelines are followed. Feel free to begin working on already mentioned issues if you like.


 * Typically, the lead should not have references. Everything mentioned in the lead should be further expanded upon later in the article, and the references for that information should go in the body.
 * ❌ The description section relies almost entirely upon one reference (Chamberlin 1999). For verifiability, there should ideally be a handful of references for this section, unless this description is the only one that has ever been written.
 * ❌ The final sentence of the section "Males" is unreferenced.
 * ❌ The sections Sexual Cannibalism, Microbes in mating, Microbe Studies, Physiology, and Venom all appear to rely on a single reference. I've not yet started to dig too deep into the content yet, but these sections may be a bit of a sticking point in the review. It would be very helpful for the article if more sources were found on these topics, so that they aren't each just summaries of individual pieces of research. I'll write more on this later, but if you want to start looking around for more sources, at first glance it would appear that these sections could use them the most. The information within these sections doesn't seem to be contentious, per se, but relying wholly on a single research article (which is technically a primary source) for so much of the content of the article isn't quite best practices.

Okay, this one is kind of big, so I'm setting it on its own. This is not explicitly in the Good Article criteria, but it can either make my life easy or really hard. Both as a reviewer and a reader, I want to be able to verify the information in the article. To do so, right now I would need to go into the article linked at the end of a claim and either try to ctrl-f with keywords to find the mentioned section or read the entire linked reference to verify the claim. Readers, to say the least, are not likely to do that. As reviewer, I am willing to in order to ensure the article meets criterion 2b. However, it would improve the article greatly if page numbers or individual footnotes were included in the article. This makes it both easier for me and readers to verify claims and ensure there is no original research or synthesis, and that Wikipedia is accurately conveying the information within those sources.

As I go through the content of the article, there may be more reference issues that I come across. If that is the case, I will list them here as well as mentioning them in the content review.

Lead

 * ❌ In general, the lead requires a decent chunk of work. There are several statements in the lead which are not mentioned in the article, so those need to be trimmed. On the other hand, the lead does not entirely summarize the content of the article, so certain aspects will need to be added.
 * ❌ The last two sentences of the first paragraph are not mentioned later in the article, have unique references, and should be reworked. Their content is important, and it should be incorporated into the body of the article.
 * Subsequent mentions of Agelenopsis pennsylvanica can be shortened to A. pennsylvanica, though the full name should be used once at the start of each section.
 * ❌"...primarily as a solitary spider" does it live any other ways? If so, what are they? What does being a "solitary spider" mean?
 * ❌"having been found in at least 21 different states." A few things here. Personal preference, but "having been found" doesn't sound quite right here. I think this clause could use a rephrase. Additionally, what does "at least 21" mean? Is there debate on how many states the spider has been found in?
 * ❌"In this species" is not necessary
 * ❌ "This small species has been used to study pre-copulatory cannibalism, boldness, aggressive foraging behavior, and the influence of microbes in the reproductive cycle and mating behavior." Hmm... I'm not quite sure how to explain this but I'll do my best and you'll have to let me know if I'm not making sense. I think this sentence is emblematic of a larger issue in the article: it focuses on the research as opposed to the spider. The Wikipedia article should focus on the spider, and the manner of writing should reflect that. Here and in the body, a greater importance is placed on the research done about the spider, rather than just telling the reader information about the spider. I'll put it this way: rather than knowing that the species has been used to study, say, aggressive foraging behavior, I want to know what that behavior is. Rather than mentioning that research has been done on the influence of microbes in reproduction, the article should discuss what the influence of microbes in reproduction is.
 * ❌ The lead fails to fully summarize the article. It does not mention the appearance of the spider, its habitat, its web, diet, etc. A lot of what it does mention has the issue mentioned in the previous bullet.

Description

 * The description section needs some standardization. Some parts of it are divided into male and female, while others discuss the spider in general, while others are all together but differentiate characteristics between male and female. I don't favor any one way of doing it, but it should be consistent through the whole section.
 * Perhaps an overall brief description at the start of the section would be appropriate?
 * "The coloration of A. pennsylvanica is more visible in its carapace." most visible perhaps? Also a tad awkward way to begin the section
 * "The carapace has dark markings that are often faded" I feel this would be better after the description of the color. After all, I don't know what these markings are darker than them.
 * Sternum is linked twice, only need the first
 * ❌"sides speckled, venter pales on sides, broad median area dusky black" is just a raw scientific description. On a second look, this is directly plagiarized from the unlinked source
 * ❌ I'm stepping back from this section. It looks like much of it may need to be rewritten. A lot of it very closely paraphrased from the source, with only one or two minor words changed out. Additionally, much of the prose is difficult to read to a layperson, and several sentences are quite clunky in general. Even if the GAN is not fully resolved this section will need to be fixed.

Distribution and habitat

 * In my opinion, the two subheaders are not necessary (See the C. citricola article, which doesn't split them)
 * The list of states is a sea of blue, and is difficult to read. Additionally, it really doesn't give the reader a whole lot of information, unless they had a map pulled up which they were cross-referencing the list with.
 * "However, it has been reported to be most common..." by whom and with what metrics?
 * The second half of this paragraph just appears to be restating the range in a slightly different way. Is it most common in all those places mentioned, or just New England and the Great Lakes? What are the Great Lakes states?
 * ❌ Oh dear, this whole second sentence is also directly copied from the source. Two instances of direct plagiarism in the first two sections is not good. I'm not super familiar with the criteria for a speedy close, but I think this may be nearing it. I'm concerned these plagiarism issues extend to the entire article, which immediately disqualifies it and means some serious work will need to be done before GA.

Summary
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this may be an immediate fail. There is an expectation that when articles are brought to GA, they are of GA or very near to GA quality. This article unfortunately has a long way to go. The most pressing issues are the copyvio, unlinked sources, incomplete content, and focus on the research rather than the information. I'll leave the nom open for the moment to give you a chance to respond, but unless major changes are made to the article within the next few days, a further review on my part isn't going to improve the article's chances at all. If there are issues like this in the first part of the article, it's likely that they are present throughout.

My advice to you is threefold:
 * Don't be discouraged! This article is not lost, and it seems you know your stuff. If you put in some elbow grease on this article, starting with some of these suggestions and generally improving the article, it has potential to go to GA sometime down the road. Try referencing the articles to other spider GAs I linked for inspiration.
 * The next time you bring something to GAN, which I do hope will happen, be sure to read it thoroughly and prepare it before opening the nom. Read through the GAN criteria and be sure the article is ready. GAN reviews are lengthy and take a lot of effort, and it makes the whole process a lot smoother if major issues are dealt with beforehand.
 * When you've got an article you're proud of, you can always request a peer review! Just say what your goals for the article are and the reviewer will let you know if it is ready for GA or FA or just the general status of the article. Peer reviews are more informal and will do a great job of polishing your article.

Thank you for your contributions, and please do continue to provide the encyclopedia with your talents. Keep me in the loop if you need any assistance, or want an article peer reviewed. I promise I'll be thorough ;). Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 03:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I really doubt the nominator will work further on this but only make minor edits, since he just drive-by nominated this article. Just fail it. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)