Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of fruit bats/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

List of fruit bats

 * Nominator(s):  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to me to fit the FL criteria, and as the name states it lists all 200ish species of fruit bats (and some extra stuff). I've done something similar on list of parrots  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: It's a well-written article with appropriate citations. The layout is easily navigable and I like that you included pictures and range maps where possible. It seems pretty exhaustive of the fruit bats when compared with the species I included when I revised the section on the list of bats earlier this month. Minor detail&mdash;I think you should list the subfamily as Pteropodinae instead of Pteropodidae (it's listed once that way in the classification section and another time in the header of a section). Nicely done. Enwebb (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't review the tables of the article, though they looked pretty reasonable on the whole when I skimmed them (and I'd presume after the lengthy list of parrots FLC that you know what you're doing there), but the text needs a major overhaul. I rewrote the first paragraph for you, as I found it really hard to parse when I looked at it, but the rest of the lead continues on with little context as to what it's talking about (and is focused on bats as a whole, instead of how megabats fit into all bats), and the body text also zooms through a lot of details without any explanatory text pulling it together. It really needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.
 * I did a little copyediting, what else looks a bit off?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, just looked at the table, and those "list of subspecies" boxes are pretty slick. Just verified that turning off javascript just leaves them expanded, so that meets WP:ACCESS requirements too. This is exactly the kind of list that I wish we had more of at WP:FL, so I'll try to help get this one through- and faster than the interminable 4-month parrot list if I can! -- Pres N  01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists like these are actually pretty easy to make (this took like a weekish, parrots a week). I might do seals next so be on the lookout  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The classification section and one of the table headers link to Macroglossini, which doesn't seem right.
 * I do not like the tables-within-a-table for the species that belong to a subegenus; I'm not sure if I've ever seen another article with that sort of formatting, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the list
 * Genus Rousettus has "List of subspecies" right under it, which I believe should be synonyms. Reywas92Talk 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wikilink and the Rousettus thing, but the classifications follow MSW3 which subdivides those into subgenus, then genus, then species  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to get rid of the subgenus, but it would be better to have mini-headers like you have with tribe and genus already. It seems quite odd to have the table format for all others species squeezed into a cell of a table for subgenus. Reywas92Talk 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal
The rest is awesome. It is an immaculate article, and very well written. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "morphological" in lead is a dab link. That needs to be fixed.
 * "Andersen" is dab link. That needs to be fixed.
 * "Nyctimee" too.
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A fantastic article for a featured list, and very well-written for a shiny star! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comments Several pages of "Order Chiroptera" are repeated in the References section – pages 314, 335 and 341 each appear five times, while page 324 appears six times. I'm guessing that this is because you've created a new citation each time you want to reference a page, rather than just reusing the citation that you've already created. This article would probably benefit from use of the Sfn template – I can talk you through how to use it, if you'd like. Also, Template:Main says that it should not be used in lead sections, as this article currently does. I'd propose removing that hatnote and replacing "Fruits bats" with "Fruit bats" in the opening sentence. You'd also have to remove Megabats from the See also section. Notes c and d need to end with periods. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in a list article there're generally gonna be refs in the lead. As for all the msw3 refs, that's gonna take a while to fix but I'll get there  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean where it says "Main articles: Megabat and List of bats" in the lead – per the documentation for that template, it "should not be used in lead sections". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it to and unbolded and wikilinked "fruit bats"    User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts about my comment regarding the references being repeated? It really isn't something that I'd expect to see in a FL, and it shouldn't take long to fix. I'm happy to talk you through it, if you'd like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, things got busy pretty quickly. Is this supposed to be like the refs in Whale?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that would be fine. You may wish to put your own spin on it, but the most important thing is that citations aren't repeated in the References section, as they currently are. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Having the MSW3 reference in the External links section seems a little unintuitive to me – if I were a reader, that's not where I would expect to see it. I'd suggest following the suggestions in MOS:FNNR and, for example, renaming the References section either Notes or Footnotes, and then having a new section called References underneath it with the MSW3 ref. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 12:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Reference 21 is not much more than a titled link. It needs further formatting.
 * Book cites that are multiple pages should have the page numbers be formatted with pp. and not p. (which is used for single-page cites). If you're using the cite templates, changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did both for them; also, Support after another read-through. I'm good to promote this, though I guess another member of should. -- Pres  N  20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, well, with Giants out for a while, and both delegates supporting (or "supporting"), I'm just going to go ahead and promote this myself. -- Pres N  22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


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