Talk:Pteropus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

I'll take on this excellent article. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The article is essentially ready for GA but I just wanted to check one or two small points.

  • One or two citations may be needed: I've marked up these in the text.
    • fixed
  • The list of species is redundant with the phylogenetic tree, with the List of fruit bats#Subfamily Pteropodinae, and with Category:Pteropus.
    • fixed
  • Perhaps the type of molecular data used should be mentioned.
    • fixed
  • The 'Legal status' section has many short subsections, which are frankly somewhat repetitive (perhaps WP:NOTCAT applies). I'd suggest that a single paragraph summarizing the legal position across countries might be more appropriate. For instance, you could group the countries into a list of places where the bats are protected (refs), and a list where they aren't (other refs). Then you could briefly mention protections in countries where they aren't native.
    • fixed
  • "No decisions have been made as of 2018" cited to a 2014 document smells very much like WP:OR.
    • fixed
  • "lost 100–120 t (220,000–260,000 lb)" - units need to be spelled out (and arguably also wikilinked) at first instance.
    • fixed
  • Longevity is a very brief section. Perhaps you might rearrange this into a traditional 'Largest and smallest' (Diversity) section, along with most of the first paragraph of 'External characteristics', fastest flight, and longest migration.
    • not sure precisely what you mean here--could you provide an article that exemplifies what you mean?

Well, that's all done, and it's a fine article. Happy to award it GA status. Hope you'll pick one or two articles from the GAN list to review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time! I will look over some of the natural science articles and see if there are any I feel qualified to review. Enwebb (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]