Talk:Schizocosa ocreata

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.

I thought that this article had a significant amount of detailed information! I italicized all of the scientific names throughout the article, embedded links on less well-known words, fixed some small typos, removed some unnecessary commas, and split up a couple run-on sentences. I moved the Overview section up to the Lead Section, since this is often what determines if the viewer will continue reading and catch their attention. I specified where in North America they are found. Under Webs, I added an explanation of "exploitative competition." Under Mate searching behavior, I included more information on cuticular hydrocarbons. Under Physiology, I added further explanation on hydraulic locomotion. Mlschoening (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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): Wikispiders11. Peer reviewers: Mlschoening, Shutaro.hayashihara, Salazarjhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Student Edit
I thought this was a really solid Wikipedia article with really well written descriptions. I added some links on words such as “tufts” and “amputation” so that readers could better understand the article. I made the header “mating behavior” instead of just “mating” as the content, such as sexual cannibalism was very behavioral. I added some grammatical errors such as “the coercive and the cooperative ways” and edited minor errors such as “ways of fighting different prey off as well” instead of predator. I removed “animals” from the “bites” header as it only included bites to humans. Overall I thought your article was very solid. One thing that could be changed is “social behavior.” A lot of the points written in that section appears to be equally relatable to mating behavior so the information under this subheader could be moved to mating behavior. shutaro.hayashihara (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Student Edit
I really like your entry; it is really well organized! I feel that this could be a “Good article” if you include more information in each of your sections. I have some suggestions: I went through your references and I realized they do not have the link to the website in which they are available online; in you last reference of the first section I show you an example of how to do it for you other references (see reference number 6 of your entry). I made some minor grammatical changes; I really like the way is written. Also, you should add the map of the distribution of this species, you say in your leading section that it is found in North America, but I’m not sure you mean that it is found also in Canada and Mexico or only in the US. Salazarjhan (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2020 (CST)

Stating family twice
This edit adds duplicate specification of which family the species belongs to. We should not specify twice in the first sentence which family the species belongs to. Duplicate statements is almost allways wrong, especially in the very first sentence. Adding the scientific name of the family does not add information about the species. Wikipedia has an article about this family. It is named wolf spider. This means that the Wikipedia view is that that is the most natural name for it. The edit comment Most readers won't known the family name for wolf spiders, which is why it is stated, is therefore irrelevant. It is a personal view that is in contradiction with the Wikipedia view. --Ettrig (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While the family article may currently be at the imprecise vernacular name, that does not mean it is the only name that it should be referenced by. especially considering that "wolf spider" is not a precise name at all. as has been noted elsewhere, there is a major difference between brevity and conciseness. Stating the scientific name is being concise and not being duplicitous. Also it is false to say that "wikipedia" considers that the most natural name of the family. it only means the placement has not been questioned.-- Kev  min  § 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)