Talk:Pacific blue-eye

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific blue-eye article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Pacific blue-eye is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 12, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
May 31, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 17, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Australian Pacific blue-eye was described from a specimen taken to Vienna?

Current status: Featured article

Australia: New South Wales / Queensland / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Pacific blue-eye is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled

Bookmarks...check this and this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced pest

Hi Cas Liber, This seems same as mentioned in article - Mosquitofish in Australia? JennyOz (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from edwininlondon

I noticed I have been too slow at FAC. I see this already got promoted while I was reviewing. Congratulations. I just had a few more comments, which you are of course free to ignore:

The forked tail fin has rounded tips. The eye is large and has a blue iris. The bottom and top edges of the tail fin are edged with white -> we're going from tail to eye back to tail. Perhaps group the tails?

good point. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

larger females (who are more fecund as a rule) unless more energy is required to do so (such as swimming further against a current) -> 2 sets of parentheses does not fantastic

good point. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

were severely affected -> this made me curious: did they grow longer to fight off the others or was growth impeded?

see next sentence...is mystery.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reference 5 seems to be the only journal article with the title In This Format With Capital Letters

sentencecased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind being kind enough to me to explain the reference system you have chosen. I must admit it is not inviting me to do a spot check of sources: I dread the prospect of having to search for something anywhere on page 254 to 268 or something similar. Especially since you know exactly the page it was on. I’m curious as to why you have chosen this reference style. Surely this topic must have been discussed before at FAC, so I’m not challenging you that it is wrong, just want to understand why FAC rules do not say “verification should be easy”.

fair point. and I have often added pages when in large articles such as monographs. Never been sure how small a page range to use it for. Also sometimes facts are spread out over several pages. WAs there a consensus on minimum page size where we should start slotting in exact numbers? Gotta go make breakfast... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]