 | Zygiella x-notata was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 20, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | 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:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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. Peer reviewers: Prernask, Shaynarosenbloom, Sandeep525.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply] |
Last edited at 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: promotedbyYoninah (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
)
5x expanded by SlyFox52 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thank you. I prefer the original hook but am approving both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]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)[reply]
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”.
delanieludmir (talk) 23:26, 03 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I thought your article was really informative and had an extensive amount of information. I thought the web section was especially well-organized with appropriate subheader for each section. I changed a few grammatical details to help the language of the article be more concise and fluid such as changing the last sentence of Aggregations subsection. I thought it was more appropriate to place "predatory feeding behavior" and "vibratory signals" as subheaders of "feeding" so I applied accordingly. Overall, I thought it was organized nicely and the amount of images was adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcho122 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Zygiella x-notata should be a GA. From all the articles I read for the class, I think that this one has a good about of information, is really well written. This article has the right amount of information for each of the sections/subsection, along with a good amount of references. Also, it has good information about the behavior of this species: Diet, Mating Behavior, Reproductive and Life Cycle, Social Behavior, Web Construction. I think these points can make it a good article! And how to forget that it was part of the Did you know section in November! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salazarjhan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
|
| Reviewing |
|
|
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will start this review. First a few quick comments to see if the nominator is still around:
I will leave these starter comments for the nominator to address. Esculenta (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta Thank you for your comments. I will start editing to resolve them. SlyFox52 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta: Hello, I have gone through and edited to make plural references to Zygiella in the singular. I split the "Population structure, speciation, and phylogeny" section into a Common names section and a Taxonomy section. A citation was added to the taxonomy section along with a statement about the validity of the taxonomic status. I am still going through and adding more hyperlinks when needed. Could you specify what you mean in terms of "sentence case" for the headings? I looked through the MOS Headings page and am still unsure. Thanks!SlyFox52 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta: Are you still reviewing this article? I would love for the nomination to go through. Thanks SlyFox52 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, I had forgotten about this completely. Ok, I had a fresh look and have some more comments on the first few sections; will post more suggestions later. Esculenta (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
