Talk:Zygiella x-notata: Difference between revisions
→Behavioral Ecology Peer Review: new section |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
I have condensed a couple sections into one (Juvenile + Adult Feeding --> Feeding, and Physiology --> Description), as some of the sections only consisted of a single sentence. I rearranged the image of the webs next to the "Webs" category, and I also made grammar, syntax, and punctuation edits. Overall, a very informative, well-written article. |
I have condensed a couple sections into one (Juvenile + Adult Feeding --> Feeding, and Physiology --> Description), as some of the sections only consisted of a single sentence. I rearranged the image of the webs next to the "Webs" category, and I also made grammar, syntax, and punctuation edits. Overall, a very informative, well-written article. |
||
[[User:Dyklee|Dyklee]] ([[User talk:Dyklee|talk]]) 03:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Dyklee|Dyklee]] ([[User talk:Dyklee|talk]]) 03:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
I thought that Carolyn’s Wikipedia page for Zygiella x-notata was extremely thorough and had a lot of detail. There were minimal grammar errors and syntactical mistakes to correct since the article appeared to be very well edited. All of the sections were subdivided into smaller sub-headings specific to the topic discussed, which made it very easy to read. Of the few corrections I made, I was able to add some external links for terms, including “cephalothorax” and “orb weaver”. There was a header where I had to change “affects” to “effects”. |
|||
[[User:delanieludmir|delanieludmir]] ([[User talk:delanieludmir|talk]]) 23:26, 03 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:25, 4 December 2020
Spiders B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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): SlyFox52 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Prernask, Shaynarosenbloom, Sandeep525.
A fact from Zygiella x-notata appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Zygiella x-notata is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by SlyFox52 (talk) at 20:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
Student Edits
Overall, this article was very good. The main sections, Mating, Web, and Diet, are all well-developed with lots of properly cited information and the subcategories within them are well-titled and well balanced in terms of how much information is in each and in terms of how the information flows from one to the next.
In the section titled Description, I don’t think the last sentence belongs. The sentence “Zygiella x-notata are commonly found on human constructions, such as window frames, walls and fences, as well as on urban vegetations such as bushes or shrubs They are also typically found around boats and on docks throughout the world” would be better suited for the habitat and distribution section to explain what structures the spiders like to live on or around. Further, I think the description under habitat can be more detailed. Readers will likely want to know more about where the spider is originally from and what continents/regions it can be found in today.
Lastly, in your article you mention several researchers and their published work (According to Anotaux et al..., Bel-Venner et al. shows that… etc etc). I’m not sure you have to do this if you cite the source at the end of the sentence. Perhaps in order to aid the brevity and readability, you can take these introductions out.
Overall, your explanations of the spider mating behavior and web construction and prey capture was very clear and intelligible. I think this article has minimal edits that can be made to improve it as it stands. Sandeep525 (talk)
Hello! This article was well done and very informative. I moved the last part of your Description section (which was discussing where the spider can be found) and edited it into the Habitat section. I also made the distribution section a little clearer based on other information you had given in the article. Shaynarosenbloom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I really liked the details about web construction and how their web weaving technique is unique. I have added another subsection regarding web building flexibility under the web section. I also created a new section about this species being an invasive species in California and how it impacts humans. Prernask (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zygiella x-notata/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
As with many/most(?) of the spider articles, lack of citations! For example: "Catching prey is instinctive in Zygiella in which it differs from other Araneidae, who have to learn this behavior." Who established this to be so? 212.202.28.67 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zygiella x-notata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008010154/http://www.biocrawler.com/videos/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=28 to http://www.biocrawler.com/videos/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=28
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- ... that male spiders of the species Zygiella x-notata use vibrational courtship signals when entering a female's web to alert her of his presence as a potential mate rather than potential prey? Source: Tarsitano, Michael; Kirchner, Wolfgang (2001). "Vibrational courtship signals of Zygiella x-notata" (PDF). British Arachnological Society. 12: 26–32.
- ALT1:... that Zygiella x-notata spiders received their common name, the missing-sector orb-weaver, by spinning webs with an area free of silk spirals (not including the signal thread) in the upper half of the web? Source: Anotaux, M.; Marchal, J.; Châline, N.; Desquilbet, L.; Leborgne, R.; Gilbert, C.; Pasquet, A. (1 November 2012). "Ageing alters spider orb-web construction". Animal Behaviour. 84 (5): 1113–1121. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.017. ISSN 0003-3472.
5x expanded by SlyFox52 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
- @SlyFox52: This is an interesting and impressive article and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. This seems to be your first DYK nomination, so no QPQ is needed. Although the article is largely well-cited, the last sentence in a paragraph is often uncited. If a citation refers to several sentences, it should be after the last one rather than in the middle. And while you are looking at the references, the MOS suggests they should appear immediately after the sentence they apply to without an intervening space. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for giving it a look! I went back and changed the citation formatting according to your recommendations. I hope this helps!. SlyFox52 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I prefer the original hook but am approving both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Behavioral Ecology Peer Review
I have condensed a couple sections into one (Juvenile + Adult Feeding --> Feeding, and Physiology --> Description), as some of the sections only consisted of a single sentence. I rearranged the image of the webs next to the "Webs" category, and I also made grammar, syntax, and punctuation edits. Overall, a very informative, well-written article. Dyklee (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I thought that Carolyn’s Wikipedia page for Zygiella x-notata was extremely thorough and had a lot of detail. There were minimal grammar errors and syntactical mistakes to correct since the article appeared to be very well edited. All of the sections were subdivided into smaller sub-headings specific to the topic discussed, which made it very easy to read. Of the few corrections I made, I was able to add some external links for terms, including “cephalothorax” and “orb weaver”. There was a header where I had to change “affects” to “effects”.