Talk:Tanzania mkomaziensis

Tanzania mkomaziensis 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 24, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Africa: Ethiopia / Ivory Coast / Nigeria / South Africa / Tanzania 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.
	Ethiopia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ethiopia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ivory Coast (assessed as Low-importance).
	Nigeria portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria (assessed as Low-importance).
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Low-importance).
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Low-importance).
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

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.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

GA review

Passed. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:50, 24 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:Tanzania mkomaziensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 06:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see this has been waiting around for a while, so I figured I'll take a shot at it. This will be my first GA review, so please do bear with me while I figure everything out. I'm aiming to begin going through this tonight and have comments for you with a day or two. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel honoured to be the provider of your first GA review and look forward to your insights.

Apologies @Simongraham. I've clearly missed something as it didn't automatically add you as the nominator. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some initial comments from my first read through. Overall the article is well written and nothing particularly worries me. I'll begin giving it a more thorough look now.

Lead:

Would be good to have a mention of something from its behaviour/habitat section.
- Added a sentence.

Taxonomy

You should add Lilliput mkomaziensis to the taxobox synonym list.
- Added.
A mention of where the holotype is stored would be great. The paper says “Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale”. If you feel up for it, you could even see if the museum has it in an online database (although it is possible they haven’t done this yet).
- Added, alongside a link to the database entry.

Description

I removed a couple of duplicated hyperlinks, but otherwise this is great. Taxonomic descriptions are a challenge to translate into Wikipedia, but I feel you’ve got a good balance of technical and readable here.
- Thank you.
It would be good to get total lengths of the spiders. It’s true that anyone can just add up carapace and abdomen, but it would be good to explicitly state the total lengths (and maybe put this information in the lead instead of the separate carapace and abdomen measurements).
- I agree. Unfortunately it is not clear if the specimen with the longest carapace and also those with the longest abdomen, or if the shortest carapace coincides with the shortest abdomen.

Behaviour and Distribution sections

Both sections are good. You've done well with the scarce information available.

AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a close look at your references. Style is consistent and publications are all good. I note that two are missing their DOI number/link to paper. I couldn't find anything for Wesolowska & Tomasiewicz (2008). Richman & Jackson (1992) is available from this link: https://britishspiders.org.uk/node/2693. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Good spot! Added.

Miscellaneous thoughts:

Copyvio had World Spider Catalog at around 20%, but this is hardly surprising given the nature of WSC.
It’s unfortunate that there are no images available for this species, but you cannot be faulted for that. I do note that there are observations of Tanzania on iNaturalist. I suggest keeping an eye on them in case someone reputable identifies them as this species.

Concluding remarks:

All in all this is a great article. I had a tough time finding improvements to suggest. It's a small topic with minimal published information, but I feel the article does a great job encapsulating everything known about the species. I just have some minor suggestions that I have listed earlier, once we've sorted those out I'm comfortable passing this. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AxonsArachnida: Thank you for an excellent review. It was very clear and I found all your suggestions helpful. Along with the edits you have done, I feel they have definitely improved the article. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed