Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myotis alcathoe/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011.

Myotis alcathoe

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that after centuries of systematic research, we would at least know all the mammal species occurring in Europe. Wrong; new species are discovered every few years. Even then, you'd probably think that whatever new species are found are marginal and occur in small areas. Wrong again. This article is about a bat species first named in 2001 that is now known to occur pretty much all over Europe (and quite possibly, also outside Europe). Our knowledge of the species is still limited, but we are beginning to acquire a good understanding of its ecology and distribution.

This article comprehensively reflects that knowledge; thanks to the help of Thgoiter and several others, I've been able to read almost all of the by now voluminous literature on the species. The article was improved by a review by Sasata and a GA review by Ceranthor, and I'm looking forward to your reviews here at FAC. Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Earwig`s tool found no copyvio, a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I can`t read Swedish or Spanish or Czech or German or Romanian or Slovenian or Ukrainian)
 * Niermann and Brinkmann or Brinkmann and Niermann¿ Funkel or Funkelmann¿ Dykyy or Dyvyy¿
 * Fixed.
 * Is Sauerbier et al 2006 or 2007¿ Check dates between References and Literature, as a few of them seem to have been mistranscribed
 * Fixed.
 * Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Republic of Serbia, 2010 vs Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Serbia. 2009 - which is correct¿
 * Fixed.
 * What does EUT stand for¿
 * Triest University Press in Italian. Fixed. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bibliographic information for Gazaryan is a bit confusing - what kind of publication is this¿
 * Journal article. The journal has the weird name "Plecotus et al.", and they published volumes 11 and 12 together. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hutson entry seems to be using a different format than the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It used the standard citation for IUCN Red List entries. Thanks for the review, and sorry for my sloppiness. Ucucha 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
 * Both images are freely-licensed. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support - reading through - notes below all else in order:


 *  ..but it was not until the advent of genetic methods.. "methods" scans oddly, invites the reader to think "methods of what?" - why not say "testing" or "investigations"
 * Changing to "studies". Thanks for your review! Ucucha 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aah, studies! That word eluded me and is a better choice than the ones that sprang to mind first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It;s late here. Will continue reading tomorr now. Goodnight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European Myotis - I sometimes wonder about using genus names as nouns (i.e. should it remain italicised if used like this as a descriptive noun rather than indicating the genus) - I'd have thought a safer wording is "Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European member of the genus Myotis"


 * .. the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of Nematocera flies, - similar issue to the above. maybe either an addjective "Nematoceran" or "the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of flies of the suborder Nematocera," :::Both of these tweaked. Ucucha 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Literature cited section needs work: Journal names must be italics. If there are DOIs for any of the papers they should be given using DOI mini template (even if you have a full text link, the DOI is still needed). Also look for any PMID, PMC or JSTOR records (latter maybe only needed if no other link available). I expect that the recent papers should have at least one of these indexes available [non-use of cite journal means citation bot and related tools can't be used to do this for you.] Rjwilmsi  23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for any of these things. Ucucha 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a disappointing attitude. I think that the guidance at WP:Citing sources supports all of my suggestions (I was not requesting use of citation templates, merely mentioning a possible quick win). I would have to oppose if none of the suggestions are actioned. Rjwilmsi  23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your choice. Lots of academic sources do not italicize journal titles and do not routinely include DOIs and PMIDs; Wikipedia should do the same. Ucucha 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding DOIs certainly adds some value to Wikipedia. If you want to check sources (we should all be critical!) a DOI link is much appreciated. Jack (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, all sources that are available online have the title linked to the online version, either through the DOI or through a direct link (i.e., to the page the DOI redirects to). Ucucha 12:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't commenting on this articles references, they all look fine. I meant in general, I just got the idea from your comment that you thought Wikipedia shouldn't include them at all! Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rjwilmsi, WP:CITE does not require the elements you propose - the only requirement relevant to this exchange is that citation style be consistent, which in this case it is as far as I see. You're welcome to oppose if your suggestions are not implemented, but I would suggest that opposing on those grounds alone will likely not carry a lot of weight. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I've so far written 30 featured articles with this exact citation style. If consensus is that that style is to be changed, so be it, but I doubt that is the case. Ucucha 23:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I scratch my comment re italics, if I mentioned it at all it should only have been as a query. I still think that DOI links are important for verification and accessibility: DOIs are designed as permanent links, PDF copies (while great as free access to full text) don't necessarily have the same longevity (also consider DOI display in offline Wikipedia versions). I don't really think that use of DOIs is a style issue, rather a content one. Anyway, it looks like the article is missing the following three links:, ISBN 3440096939 and a PDF. Rjwilmsi  21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those. I've added the ISBN and the BJZ link; however, the DOI doesn't appear to exist. Ucucha 21:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that the DOI is listed at, which I've linked to instead. Ucucha 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comments:  As always, a well-developed, detailed article. A few comments: That's all I found the first time through. –  VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any information about how the species manages to be sympatric with other Myotis? Any observations on niche differentiation?
 * Nothing specifically discusses niche differentiation. However, its habitat requirements (described in detail in the article) do appear to be different from (and more restricted than) those of M. mystacinus and M. brandtii. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone constructed a phylogenetic tree for the genus?
 * There are several. However, there is no consensus on the precise position of this species, so there isn't much of a point in showing one here. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Under "France": "It is caught at caves in late summer and autumn." Why is it caught?  For regular scientific studies?  Or was this supposed to be past tense?
 * Reworded. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Quercus robur oaks" – The other items in this short list read "limes (Tilia cordata), birches (Betula pendula)". Why not say "oaks (Quercus robur)"?
 * Changed. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll try to read it again tomorrow before I add my support.  I'm too tired tonight to say I gave it a thorough review. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: On the second read, it looks good. Great job! –  VisionHolder « talk » 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support—I gave the article a pretty thorough pre-FAC review, and, having read through it again, can't find anything additional to complain about. Did you know that Ucucha has "a virtual collection of the interiors of bat penises"? I thought my collection of fungi on animal dung was odd... :) Sasata (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * "pers. comm. in Skiba, 2003, p. 107" I see a Skiba 209 but no '03.
 * Should Funkelmann be Funkel? – Peacock.Lane 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both fixed; thanks for the check. Ucucha 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.