Talk:Icius insolidus/GA1
GA review
{{atopg
| status =
| result = Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Good article tools}}
Nominator: {{User|Simongraham}} 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- The female abdomen has a vague leaf-like pattern on it. – This is a bit unclear in the lead. Is the pattern also white, like the stripe? Does the pattern exist in addition to the stripe, or instead of it? Are you talking about the upper side or the underside?
- Clarified.
- Can "tooth" be linked or explained, as it is not clear what it means in this context (I guess, simply "projection"?)
- I read that it is a large tooth. I cannot find a relevant article beyond that on chelicerae, which is already linked.
- This genus name derives from two Greek words, meaning certainly and diurnal. – This information is not strictly pertinent to this article since the genus has its own article and this species is no longer part of it, but if you keep it, consider providing the Greek words you are talking about.
- Removed the etymology of Menemerus.
- More important would be an etymology for the current genus, Icius. Anything on this in the sources?
- Yes. Added Icius instead of Menemerus.
- chelicerae – link
- Added.
- palpal bulb – link and/or explain
- Linked.
- pedipalp tibia – same
- Added explanation as I cannot find an article.
- In general, it makes sense to, in addition to the wikilink, provide a brief explanation of the terms that are most critical for the text, per WP:MTAU.
- Added explanation of epigyne and pedipalps.
- You consistently spell it maxilae, but shouldn't it be maxillae? (with two l)?
- It should. Corrected.
- insemination ducts – link and/or explain
- Unfortunately I cannot find a relevant article so have rephrased the sentence.
- Icius insolidus is externally typical of the genus. – difficult to understand. Do you mean that the external morphology is typical?
- Yes. Rephrased.
- Can we specify whether the individual shown in the image is male or female?
- The caption in INaturalist does not specify, but from the description I believe it is male. Added.
- An additional sentence on the nests could be helpful. Is that made out of spider silk?
- Added.
- The holotype is marked that it was discovered in Kimberley in South Africa. – Confusing. Has it a mark saying it was discovered in Kimberley, or is it notable for this discovery? If the former, I would just write "The holotype was discovered in Kimberley in South Africa".
- Amended.
- That's all. I did a copy edit, feel free to revert if needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{ping|Jens Lallensack}} Thank you for your swift review. I believe the adjustments have been made. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks good to me! Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}