Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spider/archive1

Spider
A basic topic, complete and already listed as a "Good article". --ZeroOne 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. I haven't read the article, but there are some points I've immediately picked up on:
 * Plenty of red links - these should all be stubs.
 * At nearly 50KB the page is too large.
 * There is a bit of a link farm at the bottom. The external links need to be trimmed.
 * Some sections have inline references, others have nothing at all. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Overall size is 49KB, prose size is 40KB. I haven't yet read the article, but I don't believe that 40KB of prose is always a problem:  I look for Summary style when prose size passes 50KB.  Sandy 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In terms of looking for things to trim, we could start with the "Spiders in symbolism and culture" section. This is far too large and not especially relevant to an article on spiders (a few lines would do tbh).  Also, I don't think it's necessary to list all these different species of spider.  A bit too listy for my liking.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The article is too long. Several sections need to be spun out into child articles. See my edit on the last section (when I'm done). - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I started copyediting the article, but more needs to be done. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The article is underreferenced, and it does appear there are areas that could benefit from Summary style. If you can thoroughly reference the article, shorten it, and mimimize the link farm to the most essential external links (per WP:EL), it looks like it could be a good candidate.  Sandy 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - As above. Additionally, there is an inappropriate heading: "Do female spiders eat their mates?" - Wikipedia is not an FAQ, and should not be phrased as such. Fieari 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - I think it's pretty good now. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.149.133 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2006


 * Object - I don't think that it's too long, but I do feel that there are nowhere near enough references. Also, in the "Taxonomy" section, there's a red link, Opisthothelae, that really needs some fixing, even if the 2 subsections of it are blue links.  --PresN 03:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - not too long, but there are some issues. "For a guide to identifying spiders, see Spider finder (under construction)" - everything on Wikipedia is under construction, and this article should really be transferred to Wikibooks. Also, don't make wikilinks part of the heading, they should be incorporated into the section text. Apart from this, I think it's a very good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)