Talk:Giant golden-crowned flying fox/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Enwebb! I'll try to get this review done today or in the next few days. Looking forward to learning more about bats!


 * There is some copyediting needed to make this article more clear. Not sure if as the reviewer I may fix these myself, but they're very quick changes anyways.
 * "These roosts can consist of thousands of individuals, often including another species, the large flying fox." --> I assume you meant "These roosts can consist of thousands of individuals, often including another species, such as the large flying fox."?
 * I don't think I want to say "such as" here. It makes it sound as if the large flying fox is one of many species that it roosts with instead of the only species it will roost with. Edited to add: I changed the final comma to a colon, which may help with some of the confusion.
 * Consistency with the formatting of subspecies
 * Are you referring to the parentheses? Parentheses are used when the current name combination (the name combination listed, in this instance) is different from the one used in its original description. See Template:Taxobox
 * Got it.
 * "The great flying fox has a slightly shorter forearm length, and its winspan is thus presumed to be lesser as well." --> "The great flying fox has a slightly shorter forearm length, and its wingspan is thus presumed to be lesser as well."
 * Fixed spelling of "wingspan"
 * Link the first mention of bushmeat to its article instead of the second mention. The third mention of deforestation is a duplink. There's a duplink highlight tool to check for all of these.
 * Duplinks don't count in the lead (MOS:DUPLINK). That's why the duplink tool doesn't count those. I changed the link of deforestation from #Conservation to #Diet and foraging so that it is linked from the first mention after the lead, not the second.
 * Okay
 * This is nitpicky, but the photos of the fig and the eagle don't really fit with the article. I could see it if there was a photo of a bat eating a fig, I could see it. The images and their captions are good and you can choose to keep them. I personally don't think they should be there or they should be replaced with different photos.
 * This is a hard one, as I'm trying to make the article more interesting by including photos. There aren't many freely licensed photos of this bat species, though.
 * "The species probably flies long distances to feed because of deforestation and habitat loss". Who thinks this? Are there other ideas about this bat's feeding habits? Also, "probably" has a connotation that you are unsure about this.
 * I rewrote this paragraph, but "probably" was used by the cited source, Mickleburgh 1992
 * TIL that tourism can be very disruptive to bats
 * Quite sad, really
 * Can these giant golden-crowned flying foxes echolocate? If not, is it important to mention that?
 * No, they cannot. I'll add a sentence for clarity later today
 * Sentence added

All in all, this article is really good. The article flows nicely and is easy to read. There aren't extraneous details but the article is still full of information. Good work!
 * Thank you for your review! Enwebb (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)