Pholcus phalangioides 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: February 1, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-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): Kekaze. Peer reviewers: Cjing99, Ahamed01, Stomatz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article probably needs to be merged with Daddy long-legs spider (or vice versa, i.e. I prefer the scientific name because the common name is so confusing). Anbd it needs an entry in the disambiuguation page Daddy longlegs. Rocksong 05:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The "long description" link at http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/Pholcidae.htm states that: "Since the fangs of these spiders are too small to penetrate the skin, it is not considered a dangerous spider." This directly contradicts the article. Should the resource be removed? Stinkman 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I live in Perth in Western Australia, and we certainly get these spiders. But the map included would indicate that they only exist in the eastern states. Shouldn't this be fixed? Black-Velvet 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
These spiders are also quite abundant in Mexico, where they go by the name "araña patona" ("long-legged spider"). However, the map doesn't include this region. I also hope this can be fixed soon. Theodopulus (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The picture does a poor job representing what a phalangioides really looks like; it seems to provide better for shock value than for any educational purpose. Does anyone have a better one?72.81.38.64 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
recently my spouse and i moved into a new residence. after a few hours we noticed that it had a spider infestation. after killing numerous amounts of this one type of spiders and spraying poisin throughout the house we decided to do some research on this spider to see if it was detrimental to our childrens health. we came across this page and immediately indentified our spider as the cellar spider or daddy long legs i would like to know if we have to be caustious and worry about our children dying from a bite by one of these spiders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.239.238 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply: The Daddy Longlegs Spider is not deadly. It is harmless to humans. It's venom is weak.Please Reply if i am wrong --58.170.1.130 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be more worried about the poisons you sprayed everywhere. Hesperian 04:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Umm, who figures "MythBusters" is a scientificly established source of information? Its a great show, but its no source of reliable information. Any references to the show are completely irrelevant here. 173.183.146.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
Yeah, and I thought the myth about Daddy Longlegs usually referred to Opiliones in that case, not Pholcus Phalangioides. Heck, until the year I looked up "Daddy Longlegs" on Wikipedia, I didn't know these existed, even though they probably live in my basement and that I've probably seen the webs before. 96.245.50.130 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The primary photo of the animal in the top right corner shows it consuming a fly or other insect of some sort. At first glance, this can give one an incorrect impression of what the animal looks like. In the gallery of images that this image is from, there are several where it is not consuming another insect or carrying eggs or whatever that I feel would serve as a better representation of the animal. 184.88.235.102 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Why was the common name "daddy long-legs" removed? Confusingly the article has a section with these words:
Despite the article does not mention anywhere else that it has the common name "daddy long-legs spider". Come on, this article has become much worse than it was previously.109.57.247.56 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This article has been expanded well. This is a very well-known spider - I would like to see information added about its mating behavior. What is the maternal and paternal care like in this species? Also, it may be useful to add information about the genitalia and reproductive systems and cycles of this species. Cjing99 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
For this article, I consolidated the lead section into one paragraph. I also made several minor grammatical changes to add in commas, correct spellings, and improve sentence flow. I added links for a few terms, corrected issues with italicization (some species names not italicized, other names, such as salticid, did not need to be italicized), and removed phrases like “in studies” to make sentences more concise and in-line with Wikipedia guidelines. I found the switching between names (daddy long legs, skull spider, and P. phalangioides) confusing at times, so I changed some of the uses of the common names to the latin name. Since daddy long legs is a common name attributed to other species, suggest avoiding using this name after the lead section, and changed it in a few particularly confusing areas. The last few sections switch almost exclusively to the use of the name skull spider, which is not used in the first half of the article, so I changed most of these to the scientific name as well. I made some more significant edits to the predator section as the wording made the distinction between predator (jumping spider) and prey (P. phalangioides) ambiguous. I would just make sure the naming is consistent across the article, but everything else looked great! Stomatz (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
ahamed01 (talk)I really liked the information on the medicinal use of their webs. This was an intriguing and such a unique fact mentioned about this spider. I also appreciated how the headers were very indicative of what the topic about the spider would be about. The Wikipedia article had information on a variety of topics and there was relevant information on the background of the spider. The references were organized in a well manner. In terms of editing, I made some small suggestions and fixed grammatical errors. I noticed that some species were italicized while others were not, so I made it all consistent. I also hyperlinked some common information. —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I thought this was a very well-thought out and extensive article. I especially enjoyed learning about the medicinal and antibacterial properties of the spider silk. I removed a few words that I found to be inconsistent with the flow of the article such as simplifying "they themselves" to "they" and phrases like "in fact." I also changed Venom as a sub-heading for the more general heading of Bite. I would suggest adding a section on the egg sacs as it seems that there are a few images in the gallery regarding that topic. In general, this was a nicely organized article with interesting topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcho122 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
ahamed (talk
This was definitely a very interesting article. I appreciate all the suggestions you implemented. I added a few more hyperlinks but overall I think this is a great article and a potential example of a good source article. I did remove a few words that seemed to be repetitive, but nothing major at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed01 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Keyon! I really like the Wiki page, I think it contains a great variety of information about P. phalangioides. I also think the style in which it's written is good for Wikipedia and doesn't come across as journal article-like. I made a few small spelling and grammar edits, or changed the way certain sentences were phrased. Content-wise, I first added a sentence about how several other species go by the name "daddy long legs," and that as a result the term can be misleading. I then also noticed that common names were used to reference the species in several places in the article and changed these all to the scientific name. Lastly, I removed the picture of a harvestman because I felt like it wasn't relevant to the article and could confuse readers who are trying to understand what P. phalangioides looks like. Otherwise, the article could be worth of Good Article status! Shay bala (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article! I greatly appreciate the helpful comments you left! I went through and made the appropriate changes per your comments. The only change that I did not make was that of changing "phylogeny" to "taxonomy." Instead, I made a taxonomy section and put naming information as well as a paragraph that was previously in my phylogeny section in there. Some of the information that I am wanting to portray does not fit under the title of taxonomy as it does not pertain to naming but rather population structure. For that reason, I still kept the phylogeny title to represent that paragraph. Please let me know if you recommend any further changes such as maybe just combining the two aforementioned sections into a "Taxonomy and Phylogeny" title. Thanks again!! Kekaze (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for going back through and making some very good suggestions. I went in and made the changes that you recommended including removing some of the redundancy. Please let me know if anything else sticks out as needing to be changed. Again, thanks for bearing with me through this process! Kekaze (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I totally forgot to add that originally. Thanks for catching that! It's now fixed. Kekaze (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay then...
Earwig's copyvio clear (apart from two silly false positives)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
Requires clarification as this is stated without reference to normal range and where it is and is not native itself 2A00:23C7:D78C:6901:6933:7417:B737:C614 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)