Talk:Poecilia catemaconis

Did you know nomination

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 Vaticidalprophet talk 21:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the bicolor molly inevitably goes off the deep end in adulthood? Source: Miller (1975)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Josephine Shelly
  • Comment: I've heard you like them quirky.

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Poecilia catemaconis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• What an interesting creature
• Article:
  • Neutral: Y
  • Adequate sourcing: N
  • New enough: Y
  • Long enough: Y
• Hook:
  • Style: Y
  • I cannot figure out what the hook means which also means that I can't verify if it matches the article and is correctly sourced. Please refer to WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE "Make sure to provide any necessary context for your hook – don't assume everyone worldwide is familiar with your subject." It'd be good to include what a bicolor molly is (a fish?). I don't know what "inevitably goes off the deep end in adulthood" means, could you clarify? Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 05:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Panamitsu, it means that the fish moves to deep water upon reaching maturity. The aim is to create a hook which is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". I believe the appeal would be lost if we specified it was a fish just moving to deep water. See the recently featured hook about the merry widow, where it was specifically decided to keep it vague. Surtsicna (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Ah, thanks for the clarification. Hook, article, and source match. "I do not know another Mexican species of Poecilia in which the adults are restricted to deep water". Happy to approve.

@Surtsicna and Panamitsu: WP:DYKCOMPLETE I am hesitant to promote this because the article only has one reference and only one body of text with no sections which has it looking rather stubbed WP:DYKSTUB. Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Thank you for telling me this. I shouldn't have approved it in the first place. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton and Panamitsu: I do not see anything wrong with the article or its compliance with DYK rules. At 1620 characters, it is long enough, and is fully comprehensive.
The source cited in the article is a complete overview of the species by the scientist who officially described it; any other sources mentioning the species refer back to that publication. I could cite more sources but they all refer back to him so I do not see the point. Citing one source is not mentioned as an issue anywhere in DYK rules nor does it contravene any guideline or policy.
I also could add sections but I believe it would look poorly and contravene MOS:OVERSECTION, since the sections would consist of one paragraph.
I also could expand the article to include information such as the number of gill rakers or lateral scales, the date when the prototype specimen was collected, or the microscopic details of the morphology of the gonopodium; yet I feel that would be excessively detailed for an encyclopedic article, judging by the composition of FAs on similar topics.
If you feel that I should do these things that I could do, please let me know. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton, do you still have objections? I'm inclined to promote this -- the sourcing is fine for a species article, and the "can freeflowing text articles run DYK" debate has resolved yes every time I've followed it. Vaticidalprophet 14:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: It is not approved at this time (no green tick) because it is not complete. Here is an example of a thorough review from 2022. The reviewer rightly wanted the article to be complete. This article appears to be incomplete and a google scholar search reveals that there is much more that should be added. One source to support an article is not the standard WP:DYKCITE actually calls for "sources". Bruxton (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still on DYKNA, so it'll need to be retranscluded to DYKN if you wish to knock it back. Surtsicna, are you interested in expanding this? I did the same gscholar search and as a non-expert am willing to believe an expert's call this is the only source worth working from, but I've done the "cite the sources that are really just copying the only real one" thing myself for about the same reasons, so hey. (So far as overdetail for species goes...well, there's at least one FA for an extinct rodent known from two teeth, and you bet that article is all about teeth.) Vaticidalprophet 19:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Though, addendum: what DYKCITE actually says is The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. Vaticidalprophet 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am doubtful about whether the hook is a fact. "goes off the deep end" seems to mean something like "gets emotional", not "moves to deeper water". TSventon (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to promote this hook to the quirky slot for which it was obviously intended; I think the concerns are overblown. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this hook fails the first part of Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageous in WP:DYKAPRIL, but the reviewer can make their own judgement. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Surtsicna Also the QPQ doesn't claim to be a full review. It says "there are two sizeable paragraphs which require citations before I proceed with the rest of the review" and the nominator hasn't edited since. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a need to write about things such as image licenses if the nomination obviously fails on account of sourcing issues? Everything else can be good and it still fails. "To go off the deep end" is indeed an idiomatic expression for getting emotional. It comes from entering the deepest end of the water. The hook is factual when you interpret it literally rather than metaphorically, which I do not think is asking too much. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sventon, if it's any help contextualizing, this hook is an entry in a series of similarly-themed hooks (e.g. ...that the dwarf merry widow is not very brave?) that have done well at DYKSTATS and not attracted ERRORS commentary. I don't feel inclined to draw the line here (I do feel inclined to space these hooks out, because they're distinctive in a way that can lead to topic saturation, but we seem to be doing that well with this discussion :) ) -- I agree this one leans a bit more into the wordplay than some of the others in the series, but that's not a downside. re. QPQ, I'm not sure where the idea seems to have come recently (as in, especially the past couple days) that any review needs to checklist-mention everything on the first go. Reviews for articles with particular eligibility issues that need resolving upfront generally look like the one being used there. I agree the article is reasonably complete in the DYK sense, and don't see any issue with the freerunning text (there's at least one freerunning text article in DYKQ right now, and I've personally nominated articles that had it at the time they were promoted). Vaticidalprophet 19:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. (What a name, by the way.) The article covers taxonomy, evolution, etymology, description, distribution, habitat, and relationship with humans. The idea that it is somehow incomplete for the purposes of DYK stems solely from the lack of division into sections. As I said, I am fully prepared to put up sections for each of the paragraphs and to add some sources that refer back to the actual source if that is going to soothe anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I did not say it was incomplete solely from the lack of division into sections. And ouch, you said you may make some changes to "soothe anyone". It is helpful for us all to remember that we are editing for the love of the project. This morning I asked for opinions at DYKTalk because I never want to hold up a nomination - my goal is to help get your nomination promoted. Two other promotors @Vaticidalprophet: and @AirshipJungleman29: appear willing to promote over my concerns so I will dismiss myself. Bruxton (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that with soucing, we can accept this article per WP:DYKCITE The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics as this is quite an obscure topic. @Bruxton: has dismissed themself after other promoters, @Vaticidalprophet: and @AirshipJungleman29: expressed interest in promoting the article. I'll accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamitsu (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)