Talk:Neolamprologus pulcher

Peer Edits #2

This is a VERY comprehensive and well-written article. Here are a few edits I think would be helpful...

• In order to achieve good article status, I would suggest adding a little more specific information on the top section, describing the animal. For example, you could add an approximate lifespan and habitat range.
• I reworded the second sentence under "physiological differences," since it sounded a little weird before.
• Personally, I don't think the sentence "Three different experiments done in a study examined the physiological effects of social rank in the daffodil cichlid" is necessary. Instead, I would just give the results of the experiment without saying explicitly what the experiment is, because I don't think readers care much about the fact that someone did an experiment. However, I'll let you decide what you want to do with it.
• I added hyphens to faster- and longer-swimming sperm.
• I added two commas to the last sentence of the paragraph on 'competition for mates', in order to separate the "compared to" part.
• You should add a hyperlink to "Lake Tanganyika"
• You should add a hyperlink to "11-ketotestosterone", "agonistic behavior" and "glucocorticoids" in the "physical consequences of behavior" section.
• In 'Kin recognition' you should fix the hyperlink to "indirect fitness"
• also, you should add pictures to your article to try and achieve good article status.

Overall, nice job. Very comprehensive article! Ldorn1227 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Edits #3

This article mainly just included a very long Behavior section, and was pretty well established by the time I edited it. However, I did make some edits and changes. Hyperlinks I added: testes, cooperative breeding, parasitism, testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, androgen, agonistic behavior

In the “Cooperative Breeding” section, I took out the sentence “The presence of helpers is beneficial to breeders” because it didn’t fit well where it was placed, and is addressed multiple times in the next paragraph. Leaving it in would be redundant. I ended up making some minor grammar and wording edits to this section, as well. There were quite a few phrases that were in the passive voice, which I changed to active voice to make it read easier and clearer. The section on “Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy” needed a bit of grammatical and sentence structure work, and I tried to fix most of this. The author should consider going back and reading through it to fix it up and make sure it reads clearly. In the “Grouping” section, I changed 1-14 to write it out as “one to fourteen.” This reads better and looks more professional.

Overall, I only made minor changes to this article; it was already in very good shape. It was an interesting read that referenced several good studies that really added to the strength of the article.

Suggestions for the author:

• In your subheading “Social Status,” try including a sentence or two that gives a general overview of this before diving into the other more specific subsections that fall into this category.
• Do the same with the subsection “Territory Defense”
• This article is looking really good. I think if you want to get it to good article, you will have to add in some other sections besides the sections on behavior. This should include an introductory section and anything else you think would be relevant.
• Consider adding sections that relate to taxonomy, their relation with humans, how they are listed on the conservation status as Least Concerned (is there a very high cichlid population?), or anything else that may help you get the page up to good article status.

General comments

1. Need a clearer explanation on social status section -The second paragraph under this section was hard to understand, so it was hard to make minor writing edits. I think it's a matter of restructuring the sentences to get a point across in a more concise.

2. Some experiments can be condensed -There are a number of experiments described to support some claims/points that are made in this article. But I don't think they need to be described extensively in order to get the point across. For example, specific percentages that are part of the results could probably be omitted.

3. More information needs to be added -Although the section on cooperative breeding is pretty extensive, other information is lacking. It would be nice to have some information on diet, ecology, habitat, etc...and even other types of behavior that the fish exhibits. Jyn0309 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 128.252.25.17 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Suggested changes:

• Add more information to the summary/introductory paragraph; the existing stuff is a bit thin.
• Define or better explain the role of helpers.
• Remember that taxonomies must be italicized.
• Use present tense!
• Try to prune your wording a bit and make your language more technical; as it stands now, the wording is somewhat imprecise and does not emulate the language of good or featured articles. This is probably the most important aspect of your article that you should work on.

• For example, the first two sentences of cooperative breeding might be better phrased like: "Neolamprologus pulcher inhabits permanent social groups comprised of one breeding pair and helpers of both sexes, with the presence of helpers being beneficial towards breeders."

• It might be advantageous to not directly cite studies; rather, it is only necessary to talk about the conclusions and results reached by researchers. The citation at the end of a claim is generally enough context to give in terms of citing specific experiments or observations.
• Add pictures! Everyone likes pictures. Additionally, images helps break up the monotony of this page.
• For your next 1000 words, you should add section on habitat, appearance, etc. To get a good feel of what your article should look like to achieve GA status, see Mola mola, or frilled shark.
• Use the common name for your fish (Daffodil cichlid) at least at some points in the article. I believe wikipedia standard is to use the common name throughout, but I am not sure.

Specific suggested changes:

• Social status

• It seems somewhat unnecessary to cite all of the physiological changes measured as a function of hierarchy. It would probably be better to go directly to the results and talk about what was modulated and by how much.

• Group size

• The very first paragraph of this section is a good example of where you can remove references to particular experiments. This paragraph can be condensed into two sentences or so. I suggest:

• The group size of N. pulcher helpers is highly variable and typically ranges from 1-14 individuals, with larger groups living in larger territories. Additionally, group size is more strongly correlated with territory quality, rather than breeder size.

• Androgens

• The first sentence does not make sense.
• Rather than citing the precise differences in androgens and hormone levels, be more generalized and focus on the conclusions drawn from the data. You do this in the last portion of this section, but either 1) expand it, or 2) condense this with another section
• You can probably trim this section down to the behaviorally relevant information and include it with the section about metabolics under a title like "Physiological consequence of ..." or something.

• Metabolics

• See above.

Bakerb4379 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

I thought the Neolamprologus pulcher article was well written overall. But, there is a lot of room to add in more information. I would suggest that the author add information about the organism’s preferred habitat(s), its diet and where it can be found around the world. It could also use a section on what animals typically prey on the Neolamprologus culcher. I would also recommend adding more information about mating and reproduction. The article is also left with a lot of room for the author to add information on things not necessarily pertaining to behavior as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopara (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Responses to Peer Edits/What I've done as of now

Hey, y'all. Thanks for all the great suggestions. I have added the following sections: "Taxonomy and Phylogeny," "Distribution and Habitat," and "Description." I have also added a section on Aquarium Care and Setup because the daffodil cichlid is a common fish to own in an aquarium. I have definitely done most of the suggested edits y'all have given on this talk page.Alex G Zhang (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Edits (from Round 2)

Under "Physiological Differences":

• By "grew the most," are you referring to the rate of growth or overall growth? Just clarify to be sure.

Under "Liver Investment":

• Made minor grammatical change, as well as changes to keep tense consistent

Under "Flexibility in Dominance Hierarchy":

• Made some changes to sentence structure for better flow and to condense a few sentences

Under "Effect of Hormones":

• Not extremely necessary, but would it be possible to merge the first paragraph subsection "Physiological Consequences of Behavior" with this subsection?

Overall, this was extremely well-written, and I applaud thee for writing about the same species without much redundancy. This article was organized and easy to follow, and it's only a matter of time before it reaches Good Article status. One last thing though--I'm not sure if it is better to simply state what the studies have shown about the fish without mentioning the study itself, as in "the daffodil cichlid exhibits this behavior," as opposed to "this study examined.. " etc. It is certainly a great thing to have so much information supported by actual findings--I just don't know if it's too detailed to mention all the percentages and such? (I would like a second opinion on this!) Great job. Lucialemon (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Common & Popular Naming

Spending eleven years in the aquatic trade was enlightening; encountering this species regularly, holding specimens in stock every year, we got used to the fact that it has a few common names amongst hobbyists and breeders/traders in the UK.

These names include 'Daffodil', but in the UK this name is almost exclusively applied to a particularly vibrant colour strain, over which there is significant disagreement amongst hobbyists as to which specimens belong to said strain and which do not.

Most commonly, however, the fish is known simply as a 'Fairy Cichlid' or less commonly as a 'Lyretail Cichlid' in the trade and the hobby. The name 'Daffodil' is the least-commonly encountered/used name of the three.

The species is also just as commonly called a 'Brichardi' by traders and enthusiasts, though this is never an advertised name for the species in shops, nor used by the majority of lay hobbyists. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:31CF:B7FD:C84E:BEF7 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)