Talk:Poecilia vandepolli/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)

Comments

• 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.

Criteria

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".
     • The source says "can aid in maneuvering a more energetic environment". I have rephrased it somewhat. The other source says: "In general the females outnumber the males, the ratio being often 2:1, but sometimes the difference is less." I am not sure how to rephrase this without phrasing it exactly like the source does, nor why to be honest. Surtsicna (talk)
       • Thank you. That reads well. simongraham (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • 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.
     • I am not sure what you mean. The references are all done via Template:Cite journal. It italicizes what should be italicized. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
       • No problem. I have made the change. Please revert if necessary.
         • Oh, of course! Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

   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.
     • I have considered this but it does not appear to be the standard in species articles, at least not when citing journals. I assume that the relatively small size of research papers (as opposed to books) makes that seem unnecessary but have found no guideline saying anything about it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
       • I understand. Please take a look at, for example, Pachyballus miniscutulus to see what I mean. simongraham (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
         • I understand. I modelled the article after the FAs about fish species, and none split the reference section. I just assumed this to be the standard, if not mandated, practice. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

   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.
     • Another thing I had considered but opted not to do. Since the species is so variable in appearance between the two sexes and the two main habitats, it seemed misleading to put just one photo in the infobox. In fact, anything less than 4 (saltwater males, saltwater females, freshwater females, freshwater males) is not enough to adequately illustrate the species and that appears excessive in an infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
       • That seems a shame. Maybe it is because I am not an expert, but the four images do not look that dissimilar to me, and I think any of them would be helpful. simongraham (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
         • You make a good point about the images possibly looking more dissimilar to me than to an average reader. I will give it some more consideration. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Thank you, simongraham. I hope you enjoyed it! Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: That looks excellent. Please see my replies. If you have no more changes, I am ready to do my final assessment. simongraham (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, simongraham. I am happy with how the article has turned out, and I hope you are too. There is always room for improvement, however, and I will be doing lots of small tweaks in the months and years to come. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: That sounds ideal. I look forward to seeing your edits in the future. In the meantime, I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.