Talk:Indian flying fox/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

This is a clear and well-structured article with good sourcing, so I won't need to make many comments.

I've made a couple of minor copy-edits and trimmed some captions according to the 'principle of some surprise'.

• The text says 'of the bat', 'for the bat' rather more often than it needs to - the reader knows the subject of the article, so these can often be trimmed, making the text shorter, tighter and more to the point of what the reader wants to know.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• The cladogram is very local; I'd want to see a little more context, i.e. how Pteropus fits in to the megabats and bats in general. This will only take a couple more nodes of the tree.

@Chiswick Chap: is this more what you had in mind for the cladogram? Enwebb (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• The taxonomic story about the priority of names is unclear. Linnaeus had presumably lumped the species together with genuine P. vampyrus, so that name was not available and a new one was needed. So Brünnich said it was a new species, splitting it from P. vampyrus, right? In which case, what is Mlíkovský arguing about? I've read it three times and still can't work it out, so please see if you can make the reader's life a little easier.

Yes, this is a confusing part, and it doesn't help that Brunnich's paper is published in German. In rewriting it, I tried to frame it as Mlíkovský's telling of the facts rather than asserting independently that what he says is true. Let me know if I've clarified this section adequately or not.

Much better.

• "the vampyrus species group, which also includes the A ff, B ff, C ff, D ff, ... Z ff": why not factor these out, so you just write "the A, B, C, ... Z flying fox[es]"?

 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• "these bats expel waste that pollinates" - how?

Fixed, changed to scarified. Enwebb (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• It would be good to find a suitable illustration for the 'Relationship to people' section.

 Done added image of a fruit tree with netting Enwebb (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good find!

• Most of the citations very sensibly use Surname, Forenames or Surname, I. J. (spaced and punctuated initials) format for the authors. However, a few use Forenames Surname, and one or two use Surname, IJ (intials without punctuation): these should be changed to the general form.

Fixed, all references now Last, First or Last, A.[space]B. Enwebb (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 3 is a journal article and should be formatted as such.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Refs 1 and 14 cite different versions of the IUCN redlist. Why?

Fixed, made both the same reference to current IUCN assessment Enwebb (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 17 says "(PDF). of great interest...:", I've no idea why.

• Ref 33 says Springer, Cham. What's that? It's actually a chapter from a book so best format it with cite book, complete with ISBN.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• The justification for the 3 External links isn't clear - all of them are general rather than applying particularly to this species.

Fixed. The EL section was an artifact from before the rehaul; I just went ahead and removed it. Enwebb (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary

There is very little wrong with this article and with the small changes suggested it will be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! I believe I have addressed your initial round of concerns, so let me know if there's anything else. Enwebb (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all. I'm happy to award it GA status now. I do hope you will look over the list of nominations at GAN and maybe review one or two articles yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)