Talk:Manavi long-fingered bat

Manavi long-fingered bat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 24, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that recent molecular and morphological research has led to the identification of five species within the Malagasy bat species Miniopterus manavi—M. aelleni, M. brachytragos, M. griveaudi, M. mahafaliensis, and M. manavi itself?

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miniopterus manavi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Twilight Helryx 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article as soon as possible. I have a busy schedule lately, but hopefully, I can get this done tonight. Please bear with me if I'm being slow. Cheers, Twilight Helryx 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I just made a few changes per the earlier GA reviews for M. aelleni and M. brachytragos, and added some information about a parasite that I had dug up. Ucucha 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

There was a slight run-on sentence, but I've taken care of that for you. ;) --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, what's the equal sign in the third row for? Does it mean it's an alternate name (which I find a little odd given that they're taxonomic names) or is it a typo? Something else? Otherwise, the prose is very nice.--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name scotinus is now seen as a synonym of natalensis. (For what it's worth; the classification of mainland African Miniopterus is a mess.) I clarified this. Ucucha 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That clears things up a lot.--Twilight Helryx 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:

I think it complies.--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

It appears that two of the sources, The use of molecular and morphological characters to resolve the taxonomic identity of cryptic species: the case of Miniopterus manavi (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) and The biogeography of Miniopterus bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from the Comoro Archipelago inferred from mitochondrial DNA are currently unavailable. I'll wait a bit to see if they come back online. But if you can find another source that works, then go for it. =) --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley is currently revamping its online system; it should be back in a few days. If the links work again after that, it's fine; if not, I'll correct them. Those are convenience links only, anyway: the physical journals still exist. Ucucha 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If these were purely online sources, I would wait. But since these exist physically, I could let this slide. Anyway, there are many reliable sources that only exist offline, so I think we could get away with this.--Twilight Helryx 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...As much as I would love to do what I mentioned before, I feel that it might be best if we wait until the site comes on again. That way, we can be sure we won't run into any trouble. Hope this is all right with you.--Twilight Helryx 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're working again now. Ucucha 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right! Now we can finally pass this thing. <D --Twilight Helryx 19:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

Definitely clean of that.--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:

As neutral as neutral can be. =3 --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:

I'm amazed by how much could be done in so little edits.--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

Would it be possible to provide a photo of this bat?--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. This is a species with a fairly restricted range; few pictures exist and none that we can use on Wikipedia. Ucucha 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll let this slide since no image can be provided.--Twilight Helryx 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Overall, I think this article is worthy of being promoted to GA status. If the few minor issues could be addressed, I would go right ahead and pass this. =) --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]