Talk:Hogna carolinensis

Edit

This article is very well written. The information is all very in-depth and relevant. I moved the "social behavior" section to its own section because I don't believe it should be under the mating category. In addition, I removed the "venom" sub-heading as it is unnecessary. I also clarified the spider not making webs in the lead section, as it is an important wolf spider trait. Nickh994 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I edited this article let me know if you have any questions or need any clarifications. I added the thermoregulation information within the lead as this info is interesting and unique to the spider. Was there any particular region this spider was found primarily? It is within deserts? I removed the category Identification and just placed it under description, as I don't think this information needs to be separated. Rearragend some of the layout to follow the article format on the Wikispider page. Creating the category Physiology and placed movement (locomotion), senses, and thermoregulation underneath. Was there anymore information on the specifics of the sense they engage in and how? Think this information could realty strengthen your section on senses in general. Did you have anymore information on prey? more socially what types of insects they consume? For social behavior you mention in the previous paragraph that these spiders are solitary, but then do not mention it under social behavior I would mention this here. I would also elaborate more on "socialize with mother" as you mention in life cycle that these spiderlings stay with the mother for the first 6 days of life, is this socialization referring to post 6 days, and if so, how long? I would just describe the research findings more clearly here. Katherine.handley (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure about this, but when addressing the spider throughout the article I addressed it as its scientific name rather than then its common name, not sure if there is preference for this, but I might change that as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine.handley (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits

Hi! This Wikipedia entry is very well-researched and well-written. It has really informative sections and subsections. The text is fully referenced. I like how detailed the section on Burrows is and the Mating section. Overall, this article is really good and only made minor edits for the grammar. However, if possible, it would be helpful to have a section on prey and predators for this spider.

Edits

Hello! I liked the prose of your article. It is very succinct and clear. It had a lot of information regarding behavior, like courtship interactions. On your page, I moved the burrows section to the habitat section because it gave insight to the living arrangements of the spider, like the microhabitat. I also added a picture to the habitat and distribution section. The Wikispiders project outline suggests doing this to better orient and informs the reader to where the spider can be found. I would also suggest editing the lead section of your article. It has some really interesting information about the article but could contain more information about the courting and reproductive/life span. There's a lot of information in your article about these topics, so maybe a sentence about it in your lead could be useful. Lastly, I noticed that the social behaviors of the spider are lacking because the spider is asocial. You can try to look for when evolutionarily this spider became asocial, or if any close relatives are social and write about that here just to add more context. Akwan826 (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this one. It may take me several days to get my first comments up. MeegsC (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shaynarosenbloom. Given that this appears to have been a class project, I'll post a few initial comments to make sure you are still planning to work on the article. Please strike out these issues once you've had the chance to fix them. I've got this page on my watchlist, but feel free to ping me if you have any questions.

• The lede should summarize the major points of the article. This one doesn't appear to do that, and should be expanded accordingly.
• Take a look at redback spider, one of Wikipedia's FA-level articles, or the recently-promoted Pholcus phalangioides. I'd suggest that you structure this article similarly — i.e. with a taxonomy section to start, followed by description, behaviors, distribution and habitat, etc. You obviously won't need all of those sections (this spider, for instance, isn't seriously venomous, so you don't need a huge section about venom, and it's probably not as culturally important as that one is), but it would be good to be consistent where possible with other spider articles.
• All measurements should be in imperial as well as metric units. The {{convert}} template is a great one to use here. Ping me if you're not sure how to use it.
• Fully spell out the genus name anywhere that it starts a sentence: e.g. "Hogna carolinensis is able to thermoregulate quite well." rather than "H. carolinensis is able to thermoregulate quite well."
  • The convention in biology articles seems to be that the first occurrence in a section is spelt out in full, but abbreviations can be used elsewhere. Also the convention is to put   between the "." and the species name in the wikitext, e.g. "H. carolinensis", to avoid ending a line with something like "H." Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Species names should be sentence-cased per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. That means Texas banded gecko instead of Texas Banded Gecko.
• Calcium should not be capitalized in the section about bites.
• What makes "Spider Identifications" a reliable source?
• None of the links to the Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society articles are working. They appear to have moved their PDFs.

Once you've indicated that you're willing to make the necessary improvements, I'll continue with my review. MeegsC (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that there has been no response here, and that the nominator hasn't edited since 23 December (presumably when their class ended), I'm marking this nomination as unsuccessful and closing this review. Shaynarosenbloom, if you decide to return and work on this, I'm happy to review it again in the future. MeegsC (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)