Talk:Neritina pulligera

GA review

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:Neritina pulligera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Barbalalaika (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 23:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to be taking on this review! I will give you a ping when I have a preliminary review done. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you :) Barbalalaika 🐌 05:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

---

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Courtesy ping: Barbalalaika -- Apologies for the long delay. I want to get you the main notes now so you can work on the shape-up, and I will circle back to the reference review (2b thru 2d). I think a good place to start would be restructuring the article sections according to the WP Tree of Life taxon template. In particular, the lede contains a good amount of non-summary material that should be put deeper int he article and mentioned in the lede in summary style; as well, most of the references in the lede should be relegated to the body subsections, per MOS:LEADCITE. I will get into more detail, but this is a good place ton start to set yourself up for an easier second pass for the other notes below. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is really solid, it is written in a good science communication style that is accessible to a someone outside of the field (me).

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   As before, the lede is too long. Much of the cited content should be moved to the body, and the lede summarizing the content, e.g. reproductive habits. Inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the lede is summarizing cited material in the body; the footnotes in the lede decrease easy legibility. See MOS:INTRO and MOS:LONGLEAD. Also, minor issue - the Radula section makes a claim that Baker has made the 'only' description of the radula. This should be walked back to avoid an WP:OR claim, since the only citation is Baker's own work from 1923.

 Done - I shortened the lead (please let me know if it's still not to your linking; the lead is one of my weak spots); removed inline citations; rewrote the radula statement. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The references are not standardized e.g. #2, the Linnaeus cite; #20, improper author capitalization; #11&12, the latin dictionary citations. If you're up for gadgets, I highly recommend Wikipedia:ProveIt, it will make short work of these issues. I plan to help once you're on the second pass, too.

Half done - Thanks for recommenting ProveIt. I downloaded it but didn't really understand the tool :P I still manually standardised the templates. Can you elaborate on the issue with the Latin dictionary? Other than that, I categorise this point as partly done because I learnt a lot from my FAR and will add the SFN template to this article as soon as I can. Don't start checking the sources just yet! Barbalalaika 🐌 19:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

1. B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   I had no issue going through all sources -- all are correctly and consistently cited, use inline citations, have live weblinks or necessary archives. No notes. 18:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   The article shows clear academic rigor in its citing, and the only plausible WP:OR was previously addressed (see 1B above). 18:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article presents a holistic view of the snail. There should be no issue of lack of content in putting it into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template format.

 Done. I basically moved "Description" above "Taxonomy", reworded main sections, and moved the habitat information from "Ecology and behaviour" to "Distribution and habitat". I didn't really understand if the Wikipage suggests presenting the themes within each header in the exact order shown there (like etymology being the last discussion item in Taxonomy). I opted not to do it since I believe it's break the flow of the current text. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

3. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The color of the 1859 Chenu illustration appears very different form the infobox image. Especially given its common names all being about the color black, you should check with the source material to ensure this really is the right snail; and if so, explain the color in the caption, or include a line about the colors of the snail's body.

Yeah, I thought it was weird as well, but it is 100% the snail. I added the reference to the thumbnail, including the specific page. I have no idea why the author coloured the snail like that. Could I ask for a suggestion in addressing this? Barbalalaika 🐌 19:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: — chickenpox4dinner (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please comment below! chickenpox4dinner (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review so far! For the next two weeks I have some personal matters + a FA review to take care of, so I hope it's all right if my work on this GA takes a little longer Barbalalaika 🐌 14:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Barbalalaika Good luck on the FAR, no problem! I will put the review on hold, just give me a ping when you're good to get back into it. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits you've made, I'm going to look to get your reference spot-check done today or tomorrow. Per the comments:

Thanks! I wanted to transfer all references to SFN but I really have little time at the moment. I added pages where I could to make your spot-check easier while I don't get around to that. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have a specific recommendation regarding the picture, it's sort of out of my wheelhouse - I would think it'd be interpretive to point out its seeming abnormal coloration, if nothing about that sort of coloration is presented otherwise in your references, I'd learn towards keeping it as is.

Yeah, no one ever mentioned another colouration. I'll leave it as is, then, to steer away from WP:OR. Barbalalaika 🐌 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• I like the changes you made to the lede; I am going to do one last copy-edit pass.
• The Latin dictionary cite struck me as bare-bones, like it was missing publishing info; but upon review it seems like the real issue is that it appears to be a one-person project without editorial oversight -- it should be replaced with a stronger source.

Fair enough, I changed it! Barbalalaika 🐌 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

chickenpox4dinner (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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.

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by JuniperChill (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A live individual of Neritina pulligera

* ... that the snail Neritina pulligera (pictured) attaches its eggs to the shells of other living snails to prevent their predation?

• Source: Kano, Y.; Fukumori, H. (2010). "Predation on hardest molluscan eggs by confamilial snails (Neritidae) and its potential significance in egg-laying site selection". Journal of Molluscan Studies. 76 (4): 360, 364–365. doi:10.1093/mollus/eyq018. "Our laboratory examination showed that Neritina species deposited clusters of egg capsules more frequently on the living shell than on other substrates, and that the predation rate was significantly lower on this moving ‘nursery’."

• • ALT1: ... that during their migration upstream to reproduce, smaller neritid snails "hitchhike" on the bigger Neritina pulligera (pictured) to save energy? Source: Kano, Y. (2009). "Hitchhiking behaviour in the obligatory upstream migration of amphidromous snails". Biology Letters. 5 (4): 465, 467. Bibcode:2009BiLet...5..465K. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0191. PMC 2781923. PMID 19411267. " Small juveniles of N. asperulata (<5 mm in maximum shell length, MSL) were found almost exclusively (98.6%) on the shells of N. pulligera, an abundant, large-sized congeneric species with upstream migration behaviour (...) The hitchhiking of N. asperulata therefore seems to be beneficial in shifting the cost of migration onto the larger congener, thereby increasing the success rate of migration.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Barbalalaika (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Barbalalaika 🐌 20:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC).

• Picking this up for review. My preference is for the first hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. Spot check checks out. This was the nominator's first nomination so no QPQ is required. As stated earlier, the first hook is the more interesting option: apparently it is actually a common behavior among that snail's family, but as DYK is intended for general audiences and I assume non-specialists would be unaware of that context, it should work in this case. The only issue is that the specific sentence mentioning the "attaching the eggs on other snails" fact lacks a footnote: it needs one per WP:DYKHFC. Once that is addressed this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: thanks for the quick review! I added the footnote. To match the hook better I also rephrased the sentence in the article to "N. pulligera presents a unique egg-laying behaviour by preferably attaching its eggs to the shells of other living snails."

I could also rephrase ALT0 as:

ALT2: ... that neritid snails such as Neritina pulligera (pictured) attach their eggs to the shells of other living snails to prevent their predation?

If ALT2 is too far from WP:DYKMAJOR:

ALT3: ... that Neritina pulligera (pictured), like other neritid snails, attaches its eggs to the shells of other living snails to prevent their predation?

Doesn't flow as good but acknowledges that it's a family behaviour. I also think ALT0 is sufficient for the layreader, but it's your call! Barbalalaika 🐌 10:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. Since I do not have access to the source, do you have a quote that explicitly states that Neritina pulligera snails attach eggs to other snails? The article states that it's a general behavior in the family, but the quote provided above may be insufficiently precise for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Sure:

"Egg capsules of Neritina species, deposited densely on the shell surface of a female N. pulligera in the 4-day laboratory observation (larger ones by N. pulligera and smaller by N. iris). (...) The predation rate on these capsules (24 out of 170 capsules) is much lower than on the glass wall, suggesting that the back of living snails may act as a safe ‘nursery’." (p. 363, description of figure 2 G.). Table 3 in the same page then shows that the most eggs deposited on shells belonged to N. pulligera.

If I'm not mistaken the paper can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library.

Revisiting the paper made me realise that it references the genus Neritina specifically when discussing the behaviour, not the family as a whole. I've corrected this in the article. When you let me know which ALT is preferred, I'll correct it too. Barbalalaika 🐌 12:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As much as I like that angle, it doesn't seem like the sources specifically discuss N. pulligera so unfortunately the angle may not survive scrutiny. I think we can go with ALT1 instead. Just to clarify: is it a general behavior, or has it only been observed once? It is just an observation and isn't a general thing, maybe ALT1 could be rephased to use the word "observed" somewhere instead of treating it as a consistent fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The source doesn't specifically discuss N. pulligera in the sense that the entire discussion revolves around the genus Neritina as a whole. But they used N. pulligera (among other neritines) in the study and the results show that the species contributed to the findings, as per the snippets above. Just so I understand it for next time: this wouldn't survive scrutiny because it's only my second DYK, or would a hook with this source never be accepted?

To answer the hitchhiking question, the source says:

"In fact, all individuals of this species hitchhike in rivers with long lower reaches through which they migrate to reproduce." (...) "no single juvenile of a comparable size was found at locations more than 2 km above the tide in population studies of two congeneric species without the hitchhiking behaviour" (talking about the hitchhiking N. asperulata, p. 466)

Figure 1 in the same page also shows hitchhiking snails from two different locations in the Solomon Islands (Fig. 1 b and c).

Barbalalaika 🐌 07:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If the source is talking more about the behavior being about the family or genus in general and not N. pulligera, it would likely be brought up at WT:DYK as being insufficiently precise. The hook needs to be supported by the source. If that can't be done, there are multiple options: 1. reword the hook, 2. reword the article, or 3. propose a different angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Does my reply about ALT1 support it enough? Barbalalaika 🐌 07:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the source does not make it clear if this is a general behavior of the snails, or had only been observed happening once. If it's the latter, then ALT1 will need to be revised to be less "general". I'm sorry if this seems like nitpicking, I just don't want the hook to be questioned at WT:DYK if I approved ALT1 as is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I just assumed you meant the general hitchhiking behaviour (the snippets above confirm that this wasn't observed only once). If you mean the hitchhiking behaviour specifically on N. pulligera, then I agree that the paper used as source is the only report of that. It does report the hitchhiking on N. pulligera from two different locations, but I reckon that isn't enough (also because it isn't very explicitly discussed).

Can we go with...

ALT4: ... that during their migration upstream to reproduce, smaller neritid snails were observed to "hitchhike" on the bigger Neritina pulligera (pictured) to save energy? Barbalalaika 🐌 17:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that should work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool beans. Is it approved then, or is there anything else I can do? Barbalalaika 🐌 09:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should be good to go now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)