This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi / Ajman / Sharjah / Umm Al Quwain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates 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.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Abu Dhabi (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Ajman work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Sharjah work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Umm Al Quwain work group (assessed as Low-importance). Yemen Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen 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.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 00:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 12:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written

From what I can see, this article is beautifully written. As someone who knows very little about spiders, I can still understand it perfectly. The lead also serves its purpose very well. Overall, 10/10!

2. Verifiable

As of now, I have gone through the article's bibliography to make sure everything is a reliable source. It all looks great on my first look. I am now going to take a sample of a few citations and make sure they all support the text. This may take a bit but I should be back with my results later today.

• Ref 4 passed
• Ref 12 passed

Question for you! How should I access most of these articles? MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MallardTV: Thank you for your encouraging review. That is a good question. I use a lot of methods as you often need a university account to access them through the publishers, and even then some universities do not subscribe to all the journals. CORE[1] is useful for open access articles. Another way is via the World Spider Catalog bibliography[2]. This gives the pages numbers were each species is mentioned, although you will need to create an account to download the articles themselves. I hope that is helpful. simongraham (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time for some more source checks!

• Ref 1 passed
• Ref 2 passed
• Ref 5 passed
• Ref 15 passed
• Ref 17 passed
• Ref 20 passed
• Ref 26 passed

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage I feel as though this is a given. The article is written wonderfully and goes into as much detail as I think is possible with this little guy. Cheers!

4. Neutral Yeah, I don't see how you can't be neutral for something like this but it definitely passes this criteria. :)

5. Stable It passes this too.

6. Illustrated This is a great picture! I am going to assume this is in fact the right spider because why would it not be? He's a very cute little guy.

Other stuff

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows about a 22% similarity to the world spider catalog but it isn't anything significant enough to worry me.

I think we're done here!

Overall, the article did not take long to go over because it is fairly short, which is not an issue at all. You went into great detail on the little guy and I love how the article is written. I have found no issues with this article and I'm going to say that it has passed.

@Simongraham: