Poecilia vandepolli is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Surtsicna (talk) at 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Species of livebearer fish

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

Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles 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.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the small fish species Poecilia vandepolli existed, then it did not, and now it does again?

• Source: "Poecilia vandepolli Van Lidth de Jeude, 1887 is re-examined and resurrected from synonymy as the Antillian representative of P. sphenops Valenciennes, 1846." [1]

• ALT1: ... that the small fish species Poecilia vandepolli was resurrected in 1992? Source: "Poecilia vandepolli Van Lidth de Jeude, 1887 is re-examined and resurrected from synonymy as the Antillian representative of P. sphenops Valenciennes, 1846." [2]
• ALT2: ... that Antillean mollies solve food shortage problems by eating their own offspring? Source: "In a confined area, only lack of food seems to keep down the population at a certain density. The offspring will for the greater part either starve to death or be consumed by the cannibalistic adults, the latter phenomenon being more important than the former as we know from looking at the stomach contents." [3]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan de Casas

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 182 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT2, as that is the one hook that I find interesting. But one question - is it better there to refer to it as Van de Poll's molly? See the first sentence in the article, which differs w the spelling in the hook. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of substantial length, with 1,373 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 147 words. Suggest combining the two paragraphs, which could be helpful to mobile readers.
• Authorship is 99,2% from the nominator with contributions from three other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article but has seen extensive editing since being assessed on 29 August.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Please rephrase "allowing them a better maneuver" and "usually outnumber the males 2:1, sometimes less".
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines

lead, layout and word choice.

1. • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Please add the italicised part of the titles to Ho 2013, Ho, Pruett & Lin, 2016 and Poeser 1992.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm Ho, Pruett & Lin, 2016 and Lyons 2021.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • The references are given as page ranges for the articles rather than the actual page used for a specific reference. re given as page ranges for the articles rather than the actual page used for a specific reference. Suggest it may be worth splitting the reference section into two: firstly a list of citations, with a subsequent section for the works themselves. This could make it easier for the reader to use.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 1.0% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is extremely unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the major areas, including its use by humans.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into an appropriate level of detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate. Suggest moving one of them, such as Poecilia vandepolli melanistic male.jpg, to the infobox as indicative of the species. Please ensure it is compliant with MOS:LEADIMAGE.

@Surtsicna: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]