Wikipedia:Peer review/Zygoballus sexpunctatus/archive1

Zygoballus sexpunctatus
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because although I believe it is as thorough and comprehensive as possible, there's always the possibility that someone else could come up with ideas for improving it. I'm especially interested in discussion of how/if it is possible to get subjects with very little information available up to featured article status.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I too will be interested to see how this does at FAC... personally, I abstain from submitting anything less than 20k of Wiki text to avoid any possible "too short" mentality, but I'm rooting for ya here. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Sasata (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * shouldn't the authority be Peckham & Peckham, 1888, and the authority for the older synonym (not included in the taxobox) be Hentz, 1845?
 * The convention (in zoology at least) is to list the authority as the author of the earliest description. If the name is changed from the original, the authority is listed in parentheses, otherwise it is listed plain.
 * where was the first species found? (ok, I see it later in the hab & dist section)
 * range map needs a caption
 * Done.
 * link specific name, subgeneric, classification
 * Done.
 * any more info on the subfamily Dendryphantinae? How many species does it include? What characteristics are common? What source tells us the subfamilial placement?
 * Dendryphantinae includes hundreds of species. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to describe the subfamily in a species article, as it is neither immediately above or below the species taxon. It would make sense to describe it in the Zygoballus article, however, so that the reader can understand why all Zygoballus spiders are classified under Dendryphantinae, otherwise we would be duplicating the same text across every Zygoballus species article. I should also note that Dendryphantinae is not easy to describe. It would take at least a paragraph (with lots of jargon) to give a basic explanation for what Dendryphantinae consists of. I've added a source for the classification though.
 * make sure to put a non-breaking space when using the abbreviated genus name (including the figure captions) to prevent unsightly line wraps
 * Good idea.
 * images needs alt text
 * Done.
 * spider anatomy jargon words needs to be better explained so that a reader doesn't have to click other articles to get the gist of what's being described. This is especially true in the lead.
 * See if you like it now.
 * Much better now... even a high school student could understand it. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mouthparts of male Z. sexpunctatus" figure caption: tell the reader what kind of view this is (frontal? overhead?)
 * Done.
 * "...and as wide as long." sounds odd to me... I would use "...and as wide as it is long."
 * Done.
 * femora in Description needs relinking (and explaining)
 * I've described the femora in the lead and relinked it in the description.
 * "The female can best be distinguished by the form of the epigyne." Yes, but how is it different?
 * No source describes the difference so I'm not sure there's anything I can do about this vagueness.
 * "Drawing of Z. sexpunctatus epigyne" figure caption... what am I looking at here? What are the circular things?
 * No source describes the epigyne, so I would only be speculating if I tried myself.
 * what's a sweep net?
 * Linked.
 * link courtship display
 * Linked.
 * Any more detail about the courtship displays or agonistic behavior?
 * Probably not. See discussion on article talk page. The only information available is a one-paragraph abstract which mentions the species. I could add a lot of info from the videos linked in the External links section, but I'm afraid it would either be considered original research or not a verifiable source.
 * Anything from here? Sasata (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the same source as the videos mentioned above (David Hill). Do you think I could claim it's a reliable source without getting ripped to shreds at FAC? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say yes (even definitely yes), seeing as he appears to be the general editor of a scientific journal about jumping spiders. Sasata (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, see Talk:Zygoballus sexpunctatus. More to come. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * link sexual maturity
 * Done.
 * re: life cycle - when are the eggs laid? How much time from laying to hatching?
 * No information is available on this. The entire life cycle section is derived from a single row in a table in one article. All the information it is possible to glean from the table is included in the article.
 * book references needs locations (else you'll get nailed by Fifelfoo at FAC)
 * Ack.
 * need more consistency with capitalization of journal titles... maybe just stick with sentence case
 * Good point.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Current ref 1 needs a last access date.
 * Added. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 3 needs a page number
 * Done. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 11 isn't published by the Internet Archive, but by whoever put the website out in the first place, IA is just hosting it. Same for current ref 22. And what makes these relialbe sources?
 * Actually they were originally published on the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has other stuff besides the "Wayback Machine". I've added the specific collection (Open Source Movies) to the citations to clarify. Regarding the reliability, please see this thread as well as the peer review above. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.peckhamia.com/gallery.html a reliable source?
 * Please see this thread. I would be very interested in your opinion on this before it goes to FAC. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)