Talk:Anableps anableps

Anableps anableps 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: January 31, 2025. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Anableps anableps appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the largescale four-eyes does not have four eyes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anableps anableps.

Wikipedia

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 Eddie891 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the largescale four-eyes does not have four eyes?
- ALT1:... that the largescale four-eyes sometimes emerges from the water and feeds on mudbanks?

Reviewed: Climate change in Brazil

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewing..5x expanded, proposed hook is interesting and catchy, reads well, QPQ done. Will complete review soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...No copyvio issues. Hook is in article and followed by inline citation to a reference containing hook fact. Might be worth spelling out in main text that it has 2 eyes with 4 pupils and checking the source says so. The proposed hook is quite eye-catching. Thank you.Whispyhistory (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it eats mostly invertebrates. And mostly algae? And also diatoms?

"Anableps anableps feeds on insects and other small invertebrates and on algae ... It also ingests silt, consuming the diatoms found among the grains.[ ... Red intertidal algae (Catenella sp.) was the main food item, supplemented by insects and shore crabs, family Grapsidae."

So mainly algae? Mainly insects? Detritus feeder? IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diatoms are a form of algae. Like humans, it enjoys a varied diet! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes

The intro states: " … each eye is split into two lobes by a horizontal band of tissue, … "; however, under Description is "Each eye is divided longitudinally … ". Unless I'm confusing latitude (horizontal) and longitude (vertical), the Description comment can't be right: the fish would have to lie on its side in order to let the dividing line align with the water surface, and the other eye would therefore be entirely submerged or entirely out of the water. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased this. Is it clearer now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, Cwmhiraeth. Thanks! Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive Structures Image

I added a lot to this article, but I think it could still benefit greatly from an image of the gonopodium/foriculum. There is one from the Garman source that I considered adding, but I wasn't too sure about the copyright rules behind it. It's an article from the 1890's and is in JSTOR's Open Collection, but I wanted to be safe so I didn't include it. There's a "request permission" link on the JSTOR page, so maybe someone can check that out? Bloodshot20 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 31 January 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:Anableps anableps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bloodshot20 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great that you're going on from your classwork to GAN. The article is in a good state and there should be few comments here.

The name is unusual (and would today be considered malformed, with the same name for genus and species). Could you add a short statement of its etymology from Greek/Latin in 'Taxonomy' please.

Addressed

In 'Taxonomy', who transferred it from Cobitis to Anableps, and when? Probably needs a source.

Couldn't find the paper that changed it, but it seems to be somewhere between 1892 and 1895.

Females of this species are the only ones in the genus to possess a foriculum. - which means what exactly?

I defined foriculum in the paragraph above this sentence, and also in the reproduction section. Let me know if you would still like me to take action on this. Maybe adding it to the Glossary of ichthyology would be a good idea? And then wikilinking it there?

I've done a small amount of copy-editing.

Thanks

Images

All the images are on Commons and appear to be suitably licensed.

I am not sure that the rather "pretty" but not hugely informative image in the infobox should be the lead image for the article; it might be better to have an image that shows the whole fish?

I agree. I added a new one. Not perfect but probably an improvement.

There are several images which basically just say "picture of the fish". The question for every image on Wikipedia is "What is this image in this article for?" If it shows the lateral stripe then it should be beside the bit of text about lateral stripes, and the caption should say "The lateral stripe is distinctive of this species." or whatever. I think all the images need a bit of attention to this point. You may find that some of the images are redundant; some may need to be moved; most need some "caption engineering".

I do think all the pictures are related to the text. For instance, the "pair of Anableps on the surface" in the ecology section shows both that they like to school and that they reside near the surface. I edited the captions slightly to hopefully make these connections more explicit.

Thank you, just what was needed.

The diagram in 'Eyes' is probably useful but would be much improved by having the text labels in the diagram rather than numbers and then keying the numbers in the caption. It's also quite unclear where the body of the fish is!

I edited the original image to the best of my ability, and edited the caption a bit.

Certainly better. I might get rid of the numbers now they're no longer needed.

Sources

All the sources are properly cited and suitable to the topic. Almost all are research articles.

Spot-checks [1], [17], [21] ok.

[7] says "Mean standard length in the females was 18.5 cm, with a maximum of 24.5 cm, whereas in males, the mean length was 14.0 cm, and the maximum 18.5 cm." The article says females have max 18.5 which is wrong. Same trouble with males. Please check all the measurements including weights. If you want to give mean and maximum lengths and weights for both sexes, that would be an improvement.

The text read "Females are larger than males on average". I edited this anyways to clear up confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodshot20 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improving, you now have an average for each sex but not the max for each -- all four figures are in my text and the source, and you still have a different single max length which makes no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean. Should be fixed now. Bloodshot20 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This article is informative and well-cited. The two main points are that the weights and measures need to be corrected, and the images need attention. Apart from that there are only the most minor of issues. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finished my edits. Let me know if that clears it up, or if further work should be done. Thanks! Bloodshot20 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.