Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poecilia vandepolli/archive1: Difference between revisions

Poecilia vandepolli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 11 December 2025, 19:25 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather insignificant little fish. It is of no economic value, hardly unique, and not particularly attractive. It does two interesting things: bend over backwards every year to reach inland pools only to die there en masse having achieved nothing; and resolutely eat all of its offspring. What motivated me to invest time into this article is the excellent studies on the species’ ecology and the numerous high-quality photographs kindly donated by one of the researchers. I look forward to your comments. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Added, alt too. I did not think it would be needed given the date of publication. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not sure since fish is a sort of collective noun, but should “It is one of the most common fish” instead be “It is one of the most common fishes”?
• so they’re cannibals and eat most of their young, interesting. Can you find a way to link to Filial cannibalism ?
• interesting that it has no set common name
• storing sperm, never heard of that before, also quite interesting
• “…mollies (Mollienesia).[10][9] It id…” refs should be in numerical order
• ref 22 by Lundkvist should have an |access-date= parameter
  • very interesting article, leaning support

MisawaSakura (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MisawaSakura. I think “fish” is the right word here, but let’s see what others say. I cannot find support in sources for our definition of filial cannibalism (“all or part of the young of its own species or immediate offspring”). What I find contradicts it; filial cannibalism means only animals eating their own offspring.[1][2] Mollies eat any fry they find, and presumably for that reason the cited sources do not refer to filial cannibalism. I too am unreasonably bothered by the reference order![3] Added the access date too.[4] Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yey! Another fish article. Saving my place here for a source spotcheck for text accuracy and paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text vs source

• Male size varies considerably among populations: some reach 5.3 cm in total length, while others do not exceed 2.6 cm. Females display a comparable range, achieving maximum lengths of 9.6 cm in one population but only 3.2 cm in another.

• In some populations the maximum size of the males is 5.3 cm, but in other populations the males do not exceed 2.6 cm. The females show maximum lengths of 9.6 cm in one and 3.2 cm in another population.

The text accurately reflects the source but there is some close paraphrasing. The first sentence doesn’t need to use the “do not exceed” of the text (maybe “are less than”?). The second sentence should be something like “Females display a comparable range, reaching as much as 9.6 cm to only 3.2 cm depending on the population”.

• Males mate with females by inserting their gonopodium into the females’ genital opening, allowing the eggs to be fertilized in the oviduct. A single mating can produce eight or more consecutive litters because females can store sperm within folds of the ovary wall. Gestation lasts about 30 days.
• The males insert their gonopodium into the genital opening of the females so that the eggs are fertilized in the ovarium cavity. The eggs hatch about 30 days after fertilization… One copulation may result in 8 or even more successive litters because part of the inserted sperm is stored in folds of the ovarium wall, as is the case in allovoviviparous cyprinodonts.

The text accurately reflects the source expect that it says that hatch 30 days after fertilization not gestation. In ovoviviparous species, when the eggs hatch is separate (and before) from when the female gets birth. The paraphrasing is too close. I recommend changing it to something like “The male fertilizes the eggs in the female’s oviduct by inserting his gonopodium into her genital opening. Incubation lasts about 30 days. Females can store sperm within folds of the ovary wall, allowing them to produce eight or more consecutive litters”.

• Despite habitat pressures across the islands—including invasive species, altered water flow, and tourism-related shoreline development—the species has not experienced major overall habitat degradation.
• Despite continuing persistence of invasive species, coastal development to support tourism, and modification of natural hydrology, there is no indication that habitat is being degraded to an extent that it is unsuitable.

Source integrity and paraphrasing are good.

Based on this sample, the text mostly reflects the sources accurately, but the paraphrasing needs improvement. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE and look though the rest of the article. Then I’ll make another look though.

LittleJerry (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LittleJerry! I see that in my many revisions of the text I have sometimes unwittingly circled back to the wording similar to that used in the source. Regarding the size, I think I’ve found the wording that is true to the source but not at all similar to it.[5] I am not sure about “incubation” (never seen it used in reference to poeciliid reproduction), so I went with development.[6] I have made a few other paraphrasing adjustements.[7][8][9][10] Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like we’re not quite there. Some females show a subtle greenish or bluish sheen across the back vs Some females may show a greenish or bluish hue on the back. You’re still using the same structure just adding, moving or changing some words. A better way to put it would be “A greenish or bluish sheen is sometimes present across the back of a female”. Also Inland pools on Bonaire are seldom connected to the sea, and the species has been recorded in the island’s fresh water only once” vs In Bonaire, the molly has only once been found in fresh water but the inland pools are rarely connectedto the sea. Perhaps, “Inland pools on Bonaire are usually isolated; thus the species is rarely recorded in the island’s fresh water.” LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see this here.

• Males’ ability to develop an intense orange coloration may make the species attractive to aquarists. – That means that they have the potential to become popular pet animals in the future, but are not currently?

Yes. That they are not currently is not explicitly stated in the source, however, and I am reluctant to be more explicit than the source. Surtsicna (talk)

• First image: Can you describe what we are looking at there? Is this side view, interior view, or what?

Done. Surtsicna (talk)

• provisionally called P. cf. gillii – I don’t think it is entirely precise to indicate that “P. cf. gillii” is a provisional name for a taxon. “cf.” means “compare with”, and “P. cf. gillii” can refer to any taxon that resembles P. gillii, and is not restricted to a particular one.

Well observed. Simplified. Surtsicna (talk)

• machuri – what language? Spanish?

Papiamento, but this is not explicitly stated in the cited source. I suppose it can be mentioned anyway. Surtsicna (talk)

• gonopodium needs to be introduced at first mention. In Poecilia vandepolli, gonopodium bears, this also lacks a “the”

It is introduced at first mention, in Poecilia_vandepolli#Taxonomy. Missing word added. Surtsicna (talk)

• caudal peduncle – link and explain at first mention

Done. Well, I used “tail stalk”, which I find funny, but it is surprisingly common. Surtsicna (talk)

• the humeral spot – also explain

Done. Surtsicna (talk)

• “P. sphenops” – quotes have a specific meaning in taxonomy, but you do not seem to use them that way.

They signify uncertain identification. Regan identified these mollies as P. sphenops, but the Antillean mollies are now considered another species. This might be better. Surtsicna (talk)

• Regan, who treated P. vandepolli as synonymous with P. sphenops, examined specimens of “P. sphenops” from the mainland and from the Leeward Antilles, finding “numerous examples to 120 mm in total length from all parts of the range of the species” – First, could you add the BHL link to the source ([11]). Then, this inference is suspect to me. The source is very old (1913), and you make numerous assumptions here, including that he examined species from within the range of P. vandepolli which he does not directly state. The Leeward Antilles comprise numerous islands, so how can we be sure? You also seem to assume that P. vandepolli is the only molly found anywhere on the Leeward Antilles, is this really the case?

Yes, P. vandepolli is the only molly native to the Leeward Antilles, but you are right to question this. My mistake was replacing the original Feltkamp citation with just the direct Regan citation. I have now restored the Feltkamp citation. Regan does not directly state that he himself examined specimens from the Leeward Islands. This is stated by Feltkamp, who then provides the quote that is in the article. Now I see that he identifies the fish as Mollienesia (not Poecilia) sphenops, so my original version with quotation marks was wrong by any metric. Surtsicna (talk)

• those from fresh waters – I’ve not come across the wording “from fresh waters” instead of “from freshwater” or “from freshwater habitats”, but it might just be me.

No, you are right. I guess it looked good in contrast to “brackish habitats” as I did not wish to repeat “habitats”, but it is definitely not idiomatic. Changed. Surtsicna (talk)

• the “thousands of individuals” – remove “the”, since this is something you didn’t mention previously.

Yes, sir. Surtsicna (talk)

• temperature is 25-26 °C in the colder part of the year and ranges from 27 to 31 °C in the – Be consistent with punctuation in the sentence. Either the dash, which should be this one (–), not a hyphen (-), or “to”.

Referring to a “25–26” range seemed odd. Having both with the dash is best. Surtsicna (talk)

• Ephydra larvae – explan, for example “fly larvae (Ephydra)”

A great opportunity to specify the algae as well. It looks better. Surtsicna (talk)

• Mollies face few predators in freshwater and hypersaline environments, but on Curaçao they are targeted by birds and trematodes – Note that a parasite is not a predator.

It does not hurt to clarify. Surtsicna (talk)

• abundant stand of Ruppia maritima at – explain term (some plant, I assume)

I expected to be criticized for verbosity if I included both “abundant stand” and “plant”! Perhaps this will be clearer. Surtsicna (talk)

• The attraction to inland water, regardless of its salinity, has been demonstrated in laboratory tests. – Hard to believe that no source mentioned a possible selective advantage behind this adaptation? There must be one, otherwise this adaptation would not exist. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closest the sources come to discussing this is when Feltkamp notes that “mollies must be considered to be more at home in fresh water than in the sea”, but that’s not close enough. I would speculate that this adaptation is vestigial, a relic from a (possibly relatively recent) time when the species or its ancestral form inhabited areas with permanent freshwater habitats. Thank you for all these tips and queries, Jens Lallensack! Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]