Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pipistrellus raceyi/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 SandyGeorgia 05:54, 13 August 2010.

Pipistrellus raceyi

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of Madagascar's many recently discovered bats. One of the first finds was in the wall of a village house. There isn't too much to tell about it, but enough for a decently sized article. It has been listed as a GA thanks to Rcej. I am looking forward to any comments. Ucucha 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Totally unrelated to sources, but what the heck does "description of Vespertilio matroka (=Neoromicia matroka)" mean? (If this was horses, it'd mean that the horse Neoromicia matroka was foreign born and never imported in to the United States... but I'm pretty sure you're dealing with bats here so...)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. I reworded that sentence; it simply means that Thomas and Schwann got some bats from Madagascar at their desks in London and decided to call them Vespertilio matroka. Ucucha 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  Mirokado (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy: the description "Oriental" with a link to Indomalaya ecozone will be at odds with at least some readers' conception of "oriental". Perhaps "Indomalayan" would be better? At present anyone who does not follow the link may miss the point completely.
 * Good point. I prefer not to use "Indomalayan", because mammalogists rarely use it, but I put in "southeastern Asian" as a gloss.
 * That's better, (I've changed it to "southeast Asian", see for example Associaton of Southeast Asian Nations). Mirokado (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I changed it back. "Southeast Asia" has a specific meaning, which isn't applicable here (Pipistrellus endoi is from Japan, for example); I used "southeastern Asian" as a suitably vague term that does cover the region that is meant. Ucucha 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. It is not a common usage but Searching further I find "... the reconstruction more resembles people from southeastern Asian areas like Indonesia" from Mexico: Ancient woman suggests diverse migration (AP). Mirokado (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Description: "but the base is about naked". "about" seems wrong, how about "almost"?
 * Yes, changed.


 * Description: "The second upper premolar (P2—P1 and P3 are missing)". I immediately asked myself how they decide that the only one present is the second one? I assume I can find out but I'm not sure how and the article should help the inquisitive lay reader out of this conundrum.
 * It is done on the basis of comparisons with other species. I don't know of the specific situation in bats, but among squirrels, the eastern gray squirrel has two upper premolars, P3 and P4, of which P3 is a minute peg and P4 about as large as the molars, and the related fox squirrel has only one upper premolar, which is classified as P4. It's not always unambiguous, though; for example, some students have identified the three cheekteeth of muroid rodents as P4, M1, and M2, instead of the correct M1, M2, and M3. I'm not sure how something can be added about this without going off topic. Ucucha 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think just one additional sentence is needed, to explain the significance of all those details to a layman (I really have no idea what to deduce from them for example). With that a link to the more detailed article can easily be incorporated. For example: "The arrangement of teeth (Dentition) is (typical for bats, distinctive, typical for pipistrelle bats, specialised for ..., whatever).(with a reference) The stout upper canine bears..." Mirokado (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few sentences detailing the dental formula. The absence of P3 is actually a diagnostic character of Pipistrellus, and dental formula is often used as a character to distinguish between bat genera. I don't know exactly where the other teeth disappeared. Ucucha 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes the dental information clearer. This para still lacks guidance for the layman about the significance of all this. How about: "...designated P2 and P4 (uppers) and p2 and p4 (lowers).[14] The absence of P3 is typical for Pipistrelle bats." I appreciate though that you don't want to make this part too long. Supporting now. Mirokado (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's too tenuous; we don't need to list diagnostic traits of the genus in a species article, and it would only raise the question of what the absence of I1, P1, p1, and p3 is typical of. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Article maintenance: I imagine knowledge of this little fellow will increase over the next few years. What plan do you have for keeping the article up-to-date? (Something like "I intend to look for relevant new information several times a year" or "I read the relevant journals regularly" would be fine, for example.)
 * I follow the relevant literature, and will add new information as it becomes available. Don't expect much, though.


 * Can you ask one of the investigators if he can donate a picture to Wikimedia Commons?
 * I will. Ucucha 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments on introduction
 * The explanation "Although unidentified species of Pipistrellus were reported from Madagascar previously,..."  tells us nothing that adds any value to the introduction. We don't know (from this statement) if this is one of the previously-reported bats. We have no idea whether "previously" means 2005 or 1705.
 * "It is apparently most closely related to...". Who is this apparent to? It would be better to word it: "Scientific study has indicated that...."
 * This sentence has two parts, which are back-to-front: With a forearm length of 28.0 to 31.2 mm (1.10 to 1.23 in), Pipistrellus raceyi is a small to medium-sized species..
 * It should be worded with the statement first: Pipistrellus raceyi is a small to medium-sized species of bat with a forearm length of 28.0 to 31.2 mm (1.10 to 1.23 in). Include the words "of bat" because as far as "species" go, it's a lot larger than an earwig, but rather smaller than a heffalump.
 * The second sentence in the description is: "Males have a long penis and baculum (penis bone), which is somewhat similar to those of .....".
 * Knowing as little as I do about pipistrells, I must ask, is the penis bone such a distinctive feature that is requires mention before the more highly visible features of fur-colour, wings, feet and head?
 * Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. In order:
 * Racey et al. (2006) don't explicitly state whether P. raceyi is the same as the previously reported species, but it's highly likely. The text makes clear that the formal naming in 2006 does not necessarily coincide with the date the species was discovered. I added the timeframe.
 * The OED defines "apparently" as "So far as it appears from the evidence; so far as one can judge; seemingly" (one of several meanings). I think that is perfectly applicable here.
 * I don't see why the two parts of that sentence need to be transposed; the English language allows for variety in sentence structure. Furthermore, the "small to medium" part follows from the forearm length, so the current structure is more logical. I specified "species" to "for a species of Pipistrellus".
 * The baculum is quite important in the identification of pipistrelles—many species can hardly be distinguished without examination of the baculum (it is much more difficult to identify female than male pipistrelles!). External features are less important; they all look pretty much the same. That said, I don't really care in which order the sentences appear in the lead. In fact, it makes some sense to have it in the same order as the "Description" section, so I moved the baculum a few sentences down. Ucucha 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support  Comments  Looks good, I can't see much to improve. I took the liberty of adding a few wikilinks, feel free to revert if you don't think they're useful. Some suggestions: Sasata (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't entirely sure about sampling (statistics), but it seems useful enough. Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the paragraph break in the taxonomy section seems unnatural. At the very least, the new paragraph shouldn't begin with "This species, "
 * I moved one sentence down a paragraph.
 * "Steven Goodman mentioned it as part of a flurry of new bat species from Madagascar; the number of species increased from 27 in 1995 to 37 in 2007." I was not aware that in bat taxonomy, 10 new species was a "flurry"
 * It's up to 45 now; does that suffice for a flurry? Perhaps fungi have higher standards for flurries, but I doubt other countries have seen such a recent hausse in bat species, and the source (by noted bat researcher Steven Goodman) supports the sentence, although it doesn't use the precise word "flurry". Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "… honours bat researcher Paul Racey" anything more that could be said about this redlinked fellow?
 * I think so; he seems a pretty prominent chiropterologist.
 * how about a range map? Although "the true distribution of P. raceyi is probably larger than that currently known", if the caption stated that explicitly, I think it would be useful to have a map of the known collection sites (and some visual appeal)
 * All four of them? I will ask Visionholder, who is much better at making Madagascar range maps than I am. Ucucha 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A nice variation on the usual rat theme. I'm sure the answer is "we don't know", but is there any information (or even speculation) as to what they eat, given that they're compared with both fruit bats and insectivores? That seems to be the obvious gap in "Distribution, ecology, and behavior". – iride  scent  09:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Nothing specifically is known about this one, but vespertilionids usually eat insects and this one undoubtedly does too. I added a note to that effect. It's pretty much common knowledge, to the extent that I had to go through a whole pile of books to find one that actually said that. Ucucha 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment; no images, thus no image concerns as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola  talk 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support and comments Just two queries
 * all below 80 m (260 ft) above sea level, &mdash; I don't like the conjunction of below and above, what about all below 80 m (260 ft) altitude?
 * Yes, changed.
 * In the absence of an image, what about a habitat pic?

Otherwise all good  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On a quick look, I couldn't find any suitably licensed ones. Also, since this doesn't seem to be a habitat specialist, a picture of one habitat wouldn't add very much. I hope we'll have a map soon. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments:  As usually, an excellent job. Here are a few quick comments:
 * I've created and added the range map you requested. (The rights on it are fine, as have been all the Madagascar range maps I've created for numerous other FAs. Someone's welcome to confirm it, if they want.) Out of curiosity, have you tried writing to the researchers who described the species to see if they would release a photo? It's always worth a shot!
 * Thanks for great map and the comments. I will write to Dr. Racey. Ucucha 06:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead: "...it is found in open areas and is known to roost in a building" – Is there a reason why it's not "roost in buildings"?
 * Because it has, quite literally, only been found in one.
 * How about this: "In the east, it is found in open areas and has been found roosting in a building; in the west it occurs in dry forest." –  VisionHolder « talk » 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...are not haired" – why not just "hairless"?
 * Changed.
 * In the description, you talk about the penis, then jump to other measurements, then back to the penis measurement. Why not finish up the discussion of the penis with its length, then proceed on to the other measurements?
 * I moved the non-penis measurements up a paragraph.
 * "Sagittal crest" linked, but not defined. The same with "palate".  However, you do fully define the dental formula... which disturbs me a little, given how many article would need to be edited to include similar explanations. Of course, it's a little odd that we have to explain the dental formula when we don't have to explain the tooth names (e.g. C1 vs. c1).  Anyway, shouldn't we just be using simple English in the lead and introductory sections?  It almost feels like we're taking this too far, especially for such a specialized zoological article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 04:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "sagittal crest" is implicitly defined by its context (it's a crest on the braincase), and "palate" is generally known enough that it doesn't need definition. I always explain dental formulas; I see it as explaining jargon just as the glosses for anatomical terms are explaining jargon. Ucucha 06:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first two explanations I'll accept. I still feel uneasy about lengthy explanations of dental formulas, but I'm not going to hold his nomination up over it.  Otherwise, all major concerns addressed, so changing to support. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the one who (I think) first suggested always explaining dental formulas (I certainly suggested it to someone, and I think it was Ucucha), I agree with it. FAs have a dual role, both as specialist reference articles and as articles for general readers. One ought to look at them with a "if this were TFA, would a typical reader coming at it from the main page with no background knowledge understand it?" eye; at the very least, the explanation ought at least to be in a footnote. Wikipedia isn't a scavenger hunt, and it's unfair to expect a lay reader to have to go wading through assorted other articles before they can understand the basic terminology. – iride scent  19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I favor more of a footnote for such a long explanation. But in all fairness, it seems like technical terms in the biology articles get a lot more scrutiny than those in other advanced topics, such as opera, geology, etc.  When I make the same kinds of suggestions during reviews of those kinds of FACs, people act like I'm the first person to make such an claim.  Often their arguments start with statements like "I understand it, so I don't see the problem", and then ultimately lead to a general view like: "Its an advanced article so that's what you get."  I realize the double-standard is due to the tendencies of certain reviewers to review certain articles, but we're not being consistent.  This all goes back to my previous post at WT:FAC and a lack of clarity in the policies. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


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