Talk:Mauritian tomb bat
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mauritian tomb bat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Mauritian tomb bat was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Mauritian tomb bat received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2010 / Spring 2011 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2010. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration. |
References
[edit]This is where you should put any credible sources of information --Artemis Gray (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's great that the ball's rolling, but perhaps before information is added to the article sources can be found and generated, that way you can put them in right after you write the information (this will help you keep track of what came from where and will also make the statements made in the article credible).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was distantly planning to work on this article as part of a series on Malagasy bats, but I'll be happy to see it develop as part of the AP Biology project. I think you'll find, though, that the amount of available sources will be quite limited. You already found the Mammalian Species account, which is a great source, but I don't think there are many others available online (Animal Diversity Web is not considered a reliable source). If necessary, I'll be able to help you get some sources. Ucucha 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much!--Artemis Gray (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're in good hands Artemis Gray, reliable sources are Wikipedial gold and no one is better at sniffing them out than Ucucha.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much!--Artemis Gray (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was distantly planning to work on this article as part of a series on Malagasy bats, but I'll be happy to see it develop as part of the AP Biology project. I think you'll find, though, that the amount of available sources will be quite limited. You already found the Mammalian Species account, which is a great source, but I don't think there are many others available online (Animal Diversity Web is not considered a reliable source). If necessary, I'll be able to help you get some sources. Ucucha 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I am not exactly sure whether or not to list one of my potential references as a source in the main article. I haven't directly quoted anything from it, but should I still list it as a source? If anyone knows the answer feel free to respond. Thanks!--Rebekah best (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Citing a reference has nothing to do with direct quotes. It also has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with acknowledging where you got the facts or information from in the first place. So, everything you write in the article will have a citation to a source because Wikipedia forbids the inclusion of original research. In other words, everything you write has to come from someplace. You must say where that someplace was within the text itself. Seriously, it isn't difficult or scary to do. Just add the information you find in your source to the article and add an inline citation at the end of the sentence. Be sure the text you add is digested through your brain first and is not a copy or near copy of what is in your source. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Format
[edit]May I recommend that if you want to add as you go to the main page, that you use templates for the sections without any information--TimHAllstr (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have empty sub-titles. The article should always have a finished look to it...not a giant "to do" list or "note-to-self". Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Potential references
Potential References List |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
--Rebekah best (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC) --Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
In-line citations
[edit]Repeating what was said just above: please include the citation at the end of the line of text. Right now, none of the sentences have a citation. Identifying where the facts came from once the article is written is unnecessarily difficult. You don't want to delete perfectly good bits of text because no one can come up with the original source. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Master source
[edit]I suspect this will be your master source/single best reference.
Taphozous mauritianus by Carol A. Dengis
Mammalian Species,No. 522, Taphozous mauritianus (May 17, 1996), pp. 1-5
Published by: American Society of Mammalogists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3504189
Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Being that there does not seem to be multitudes of resources on this subject, I would recommend using a master reference as suggested, but set it up so that you reference each page that you use.--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How to do things
[edit]I've noticed that several project editors seem to be hesitant to add to the project because they don't know what to do. The easiest thing is to imitate a recent Featured Article. For example, Rock Martin was made FA in July 2010. It is an African bird. Mauritian Tomb Bat is African: close enough. So, using the "Edit" tab, examine the article and how it is setup technically - and copy it. For example, do the citations and references exactly like it. Use the "Show preview" button frequently before "Save page" will keep most blunders from ever seeing the light of day. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've set things up so that the project editors will - more or less- just copy the format. I've included the most common situations of inline citations. The good news is that I think this will be an easy FA: just need to add work and time. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, no, no..this isn't supposed to be easy!!!! I want some...tears...blood...something!! Haha, just joking. You've done a good service westcoast. :-)NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tears and blood come during FAC! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am just now removing my bandages!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tears and blood come during FAC! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, no, no..this isn't supposed to be easy!!!! I want some...tears...blood...something!! Haha, just joking. You've done a good service westcoast. :-)NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested Reference
[edit]Someone requested the bat selection out of "The Natural History of Madagascar" the other day and I've gotten my grubby hands on its PDF. If someone could enable their email or just give me an address through Facebook or whatnot, I'd be more than happy to send it forward. --Yohmom (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Yohmom i am putting it on our reference list as we speak. Thak you! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Geoffroy speculation
[edit]The Geoffroy speculation is reasonable from the Dengis paper because Geoffroy identified the speciment in a paper about the mammals of Egypt. And, Geoffroy was only in Egypt in Napoleans expedition of 1798. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is, however, wrong, which is a good reason not to include such speculations in an article. There is a reason no original research is a Wikipedia policy. You can see a revised edition of his original description here; he described a species from Egypt, and in the process compared it to a species from Mauritius (=Île-de-France) which he also named as new. That species is Taphozous mauritianus. Ucucha 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I stand corrected! I'll change the text. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference! And, the text is now made good. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I stand corrected! I'll change the text. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Distribution
[edit]Is there any way to make this section more concise? I haven't looked at a map of Africa in a while, but could we address the region of Africa in which it is mostly found, and then some of the outliers not in that region? Strombollii (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and eventually a map will be necessary. One more note: why say "dry" and "wet" savanna...why not just say savanna?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you both 110% but considering the "Distribution" section has no inline citation at all, I think questions of style are a bit premature. What this article needs is sourced text. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you 111%. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you both 110% but considering the "Distribution" section has no inline citation at all, I think questions of style are a bit premature. What this article needs is sourced text. Cheers,Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It It It
[edit]So which of my illustrious students will take a gander at the behavior section and rectify the over use of the word It. --JimmyButler (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I want to, but I think I'll leave it to the editors...Strombollii (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right...the copy-editor in me is tugging at the chains to get loose. :-)NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Capatilization
[edit]I see an awful lot of "The Mauritian Tomb Bat"...I don't think everyone of those words needs to be capitalized ("bat" I'm positive doesn't need to be).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Status -> Conservation
[edit]I think the Status section should be renamed: Conservation is what I see in most other articles. Also, note that when two sentences come from the same source, it is unnecessary to provide an in-line citation for both.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- At this point in the article's development, it is best to provide an in-line citation for each sentence. Why? Well, the sentences are very likely to become separated or combined with other sentences as more text is added to the article. At some point, during FA, you'll be looking at that citation-less sentence wondering where it came from. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I changed status to conservation. whatever :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Very true, and thanks for doing that. :-D--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I changed status to conservation. whatever :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? I had no idea...
[edit]"the bat's eyesight that is superior to that of other insect-eating bats"--bats can see!?
- Nevermind...sources support the students here. Sorry!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I know...I know...but I have to ask...
[edit]Shouldn't the "cited texts" be given reference "names" so that the "references" will link down to them?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've done this with the sources already present...view in "edit mode" to see what I did (for future reference).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was a major contribution - I was wondering who made the transformation. Thanks - hopefully they will discover the pattern and follow up with future citations.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome, it was an easy switch. References are tough. I think it should be easier to figure out how to format future citations in this article now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was a major contribution - I was wondering who made the transformation. Thanks - hopefully they will discover the pattern and follow up with future citations.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Converting measurements
[edit]Measurements in the article should be put into a conversion template. Follow the guidelines here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Introduction
[edit]The introduction currently consist of two lines. This section is in dire need of improvement. It is typically a summation of the material that follows. It is not unusual to write it last - after the article is fully developed; however, I would attempt some sort of summary prior to requesting the peer review (hopefully, before the holidays).--JimmyButler (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]"identified the Mauritian tomb bat" ... as a separate species (?) To identify means to establish something as the same as something. In this he defined a new species.
list of synonyms: missing "and" towards end of list.
The Mauritian tomb bat lives in the open but the genus occupies tomb walls. (Roughly paraphrased, but still, isn't this a contradiction that requires clarification.
"durnal" ==> "diurnal" (?)
Some of the stuff in "Taxonomy" seems to belong in "Behaviour" and "Description". Nice to see some stuff about function.
--Ettrig (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Take note of the above comments students!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sevral missspeled words which are in bad ned of corecting. Not vere cool.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
characterized from other species; -> distinguished from (?)
Wikilinks
[edit]Another concern I have (this is a small one) is that there don't appear to be enough w-links. There are entire paragraphs that don't have a single one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, whoever introduced the Skinner source - if you identify the specific pages for each inline reference, it will serve to clean up the notes section. In fact, that goes for all of them lacking page id's. Also, another picture to balance the left side and break up the text at the bottom - perhaps a group or one in flight or mom and baby? --JimmyButler (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Referencing errors
[edit]Geoffrey, E. (1818), This reference in the article is completely misrepresented. Where did you get Geoffrey, E. as the author? The info is from the encyclopedia of life - which I think uses the Animal Diversity Web-site. Taphozous mauritianus E. Geoffroy, 1818 That title is the name of the bat and the person receiving credit for naming it - not the author of the article. Referencing information accurately is the most important aspect of what we are learning here. Once one mistake is identified - the entire article is suspect. --JimmyButler (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The web-link for skinner is of limited value - access is limited (I'm not allowed to view the text); although I am given the opportunity to buy the book. some books in "Google Books" have unlimited viewing - I'm guessing this one does not. Its still a valid source; just determine the protocol for linking to Google Books--JimmyButler (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- This can't be stressed enough: make triple sure all references are formatted correctly. If they are not, all sorts of problems will arise.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will look into it, but user name Rickabaugh has become the guru of citations within documents. I will ask him if there is anyway we can meet this week to get them all figured out once and for all.--Jraffe0404 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't understand myself why Geoffrey was in the article, I found that he named the species, but I didn't see how it came into play. As for the Skinner source, I didn't have much time to look at it, and my priority was fixing the mess, and I used what was already in place. I should have looked at it before hand, but I'll work with User:Jraffe0404 to figure it out. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will look into it, but user name Rickabaugh has become the guru of citations within documents. I will ask him if there is anyway we can meet this week to get them all figured out once and for all.--Jraffe0404 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- This can't be stressed enough: make triple sure all references are formatted correctly. If they are not, all sorts of problems will arise.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Taxonomy section - Pre-Peer review
[edit]Taxonomy Section --JimmyButler (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Taxonomy section needs expanding. To include unifying characteristics of the Genus as well as the key traits that separate it from other bats.
- (
The contrast between the Egyptian tomb bat is awkwardly phrased. There needs to be a better descriptive sentence to link the two species. Precisely what is the connection between Geoffry and these two species? Is there a historical connection between the two?) - (
Are there any other members of the genus to note? How many share this genus?) - (
Perhaps a brief discussion of common name(rationale)– especially if it varies from area to area.) - (
Any examples of hybridization or sub-species?*)
- No subspecies or hybridization was found.
- Any molecular studies – DNA comparisons to establish relationships with other bats?*
- Any research on Evolutionary history – fossil records, to establish relationship with other bats
- Thanks for the reference! It did have useful information, but I didn't see anything that had anything to do with evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is currently under study by Dr. Nancy Simmons of the AMNH, who is including Taphozous mauritianus in her studies of evolutionary relationships of bats. That was the first step - the obvious follow through would be to seek out Dr. Nancy Simmons work - if it is availbale. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last two things on the list I just need to put a little more good searching in. I am putting it up for review, but they will be addressed. Never fear! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is currently under study by Dr. Nancy Simmons of the AMNH, who is including Taphozous mauritianus in her studies of evolutionary relationships of bats. That was the first step - the obvious follow through would be to seek out Dr. Nancy Simmons work - if it is availbale. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Description Pre-Peer Review
[edit]Description--JimmyButler (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Provide English equivalents (There is template for that).
- (
Sexes are similar in color and size If there are no sexually dimorphic characteristics then say so directly. If there are any – these need to be addressed.) - (
“The presence of the dim-light (RH1) gene in both the tomb bats and the Old-World bats suggests convergent evolution] of this gene in a similar light rich environment. “ I thought Africa was included in the Old World; thus are not tomb bats - old world bats? Also, a dim-light gene evolving in a light rich environment? Perhaps the sentence makes sense in the context of the original article; but it seems to need some explaining here. Also I would place this info elsewhere and devote this section to morphology.) - (
The ears are erect with rounded edges and no papillae] on the inner edges. Papillae? Without a link to another article; the typical reader will be at a loss. Perhaps an explanation of the term.) - (
As a larger species of bat, Larger than what - other tomb bats? bats in general? Is it one of the largest bats? If so how does it compare to other bats.) - Although the name "tomb bat" and the genus Taphozous – (derived from the Greek] word for a grave) – would suggest a dark, closed in habitat, the Mauritian tomb bat lives out in the open This is not a description of the bat - rather a description of its habitat preference - its in the wrong section.
- I believe this is here becasue it is getting at the etymology of the name and giving some facts about it. I hesitate to move it.--Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- (
The term "tomb bat" originated from the genus commonly being seen on the walls of old tombs. This could go in taxonomy or habitat - but not description.) - (
Its semi-diurnal activity has led to the evolution of relatively good eye-sight in tomb bats, unlike most echolocating bats]. I would keep the description section devoted to morphology and place items such as this else where. Perhaps behavior or predatory behavior/nutrition?)
- Maybe an 'Ecology' section?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have merely begun to address the issues raised, and I can probably finish them tomorrow, which should be good. And NYMFan, I think an ecology section would be prime. I just need to get together the information that would need to be Transitioned to it. Thanks you guys. I think it is really beginning to get to take on an acceptable form. I feel as though peer review is going to be brutal, however, even expetionally brutal. Better brace myself. I am determined to submit for at least GA before it is over with. Bring it on. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to see some enthusiasm. I can offer a full review before PR (on top of teach's ongoing review)...give me a day or two though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Anatomy and Sexual Dimorphism Pre-Peer Review
[edit]Anatomy and Sexual Dimorphism --JimmyButler (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- (
The bats kidneys have a mean renal index of 5.55 and a "predicted mean maximum urine concentration" of 3,921 mosmol/kg. From this, scientists have "tentatively" come to the conclusion that this species' kidneys offer valuable water conservation that helps it retain liquid The numbers alone offer nothing for even the most advanced reader. Some effort to interpret the data or at least offer a comparison to other bats. Why tentative? Could this be moved to the habitat section as it relates to their ability to tolerate dry conditions?) - The anatomy section has no transition phrases between unique anatomical features. One fact ends abruptly – followed by a new factoid. It very poorly constructed as an eclectic assemblage of facts. Elaborate on the trivia and organize into paragraphs.
- (
There is a small pouch located between the radius and the fifth digit (or basal joint) of the wing, which may be used to store insects while flying If this could also be relocated to feeding behavior - then the remaining material is strictly about sexual dimorphism which would allow you to re-title the section heading as such.)
PLEASE READ IF YOU ARE GOING EDIT!
[edit]- I am glad that everybody is helping to get the article ready, but I am seen some pretty ugly edits on here. If you are going to put something into the article, make sure that it makes sense when you put it in, and make sure that you understand what it is saying before you show the world. So far i have learned about everything from bat gestation period to renal physiology. Know it, cause if not it ofter do not make sense and makes the article look really sloppy. Also, make soure that you are not repeating information already in the article, or if you must make sure that you are at least putting in a better, more understandable segment of information. Many people i have seen have put good stuff in, but it is repeated or deleted and replaced with something sloppier and often doesn't make sense. I just wanted to make that known. DON'T STOP ADDING STUFF!!! But when you do make sure that is either a good revision, or good piece of new information. Thanks guys! --Jraffe0404 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia. Some edits are useful, some are not. If there not, then you can revert them, see WP:BRD. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SHOUT. Logan Talk Contributions 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Sigh) Accept all efforts from a positive perspective - the more corrections and reverts you are able to perform - the more evidence of involvement to include in your portfolio! A plea to the masses for better writing skills - we will not include that effort in futility in the portfolio! Happy editing Jraffe!--JimmyButler (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, good luck! Keep in mind that there are many wikipolicies out there, so many it may be hard to keep track of at times.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Guys, I'll keep these in mind. And Mr. Butler, I just realized this, and I wanted to hit myself. However, it is unlikely that people will read it often enough to catch it. Not a lack of faith in them, just I don't believe that it will change the trend.--Jraffe0404 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, good luck! Keep in mind that there are many wikipolicies out there, so many it may be hard to keep track of at times.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Sigh) Accept all efforts from a positive perspective - the more corrections and reverts you are able to perform - the more evidence of involvement to include in your portfolio! A plea to the masses for better writing skills - we will not include that effort in futility in the portfolio! Happy editing Jraffe!--JimmyButler (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My concerns
[edit]Although the following list may seem long, fear not, for it is only a grammar sweep.
Show at own risk.
|
---|
|
Ignore any issues already brought up and addressed somewhere else.Feel free to fight me on any of these, I make mistakes too. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)- If you've addressed a concern, please strike it (
like this). Monitoring all the small changes and checking back with my list will create a headache I don't have the time or the medication for. Thank you! :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you've addressed a concern, please strike it (
Peer review archived
[edit]Well the peer review was archived without anyone really coming along. You could throw it up for GA, but be prepared for anything. Best of luck and a happy new year, --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it being archived a good thing?--Artemis Gray (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It just means its over, nobody can go to that page and offer suggestions. Also, it's been taken off this list, so it may be harder for people to find.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- How did it get archived and why? Just curious. Thanks. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- If there's minimal activity for a long enough period of time (or if nobody really offers input), a bot comes along and archives it (may have to something to do with page length: if it stays too short for too long...goodbye). And your welcome. Any pressure from teach to put it up for GA?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No GA's / FA's this year - we are done.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh wow. Sorry to hear that...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No GA's / FA's this year - we are done.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- If there's minimal activity for a long enough period of time (or if nobody really offers input), a bot comes along and archives it (may have to something to do with page length: if it stays too short for too long...goodbye). And your welcome. Any pressure from teach to put it up for GA?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- How did it get archived and why? Just curious. Thanks. --Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It just means its over, nobody can go to that page and offer suggestions. Also, it's been taken off this list, so it may be harder for people to find.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mauritian tomb bat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Before I can review this, several sourced paragraphs need sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- On second look, it is too far from the minimum requirement to be acceptable at this point, so I'll have to quickfail. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This looks like nonsense that should be removed?
[edit]"In fact, the odds that you are being watched by one right now are quite high."
^ Really? This is an absurd statement that I don't think belongs on Wikipedia. But I'll let someone who's been working on this page decide that for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.206.46 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)