Talk:Pachyballus castaneus

Pachyballus castaneus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 6, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Africa: Mozambique / South Africa / Zimbabwe Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mozambique (assessed as Low-importance).
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Zimbabwe (assessed as Low-importance).

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Passed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pachyballus castaneus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings once again Simongraham (talk · contribs)! It seems we have another fine article here, so let's begin the review!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Initial comments after a quick reading:

Y*Once again, the prose is good, and most of the structures have been briefly explained, but some parts are somewhat overly technical. Thinking of the general public, we should add brief explanations of some terms, in the very same way you've done in Pachyballus ornatus.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind. I have added a few more explanations in the lead and the main body.--simongraham (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thank you! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking P. ornatus as a parameter, I believe the text is well-organized enough. I still think some subtitles might help casual readers find information more quickly, but I leave this entirely up to you!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some CC-BY figures we could use from Wesołowska, Azarkina & Wiśniewski 2020. I'll arrange that.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That would be really helpful.--simongraham (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y*Once more, I don't think it's necessary to mention the name of each researcher who described the species in Introduction (of course, unless there's a particular reason to highlight these individuals).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them.--simongraham (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y*There were some small inconsistencies regarding the original description (e.g., Simon described the female, not male, in 1900) but I've already corrected that. I've also added the original description AND a good source for the etymology to the references, and expanded the text accordingly. Please verify!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent, and really enhances the article. I have added a bit more, including a translation of the title of Simon's article.--simongraham (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Cavallari: Thank you for all your work on this. I feel that the article is already a lot better and look forward to seeing what you can find amongst the illustrations. simongraham (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some illustrations, one from an excellent reference that I believe we should include in the article. I'll elaborate on this further below. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check

simongraham before we go ahead with a quick ref check, I've found this amazing reference that brings crucial data on distribution, habitat and behavior. Everything is CC-BY 4.0. I believe we should include all the relevant content from this one. I'll help by including some of the images (I've already included one), but I'll wait for you to work on the text before I include some more!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Cavallari: Thank you for an excellent find. I have added a section on the spider's behaviour based on this article. simongraham (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Ref #	Ref author	Comments
2	World Spider Catalog	Y States when female and male individuals were described. Check.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5	Benjamin 2004	Y Mentions Pachyballus among the Ballinae. Check.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9	Bodner & Maddison 2016	Y Exactly as ref says.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13	Wesołowska, Azarkina & Wiśniewski 2020	Y Measurements all check out perfectly.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16	Richman & Jackson 1992	Y Mentions vision and predation strategy.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my ref check. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Improvements made during the revision made it a much lighter reading.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Spot-check revealed no issues.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
With the inclusion of a few refs, it is now pretty much complete.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems here.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
All good.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One of the best-illustrated spider articles I've come across so far.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail: .

Excellent job once again. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.