Wikipedia:Peer review/Mauritian Tomb Bat/archive1

Mauritian Tomb Bat
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because my fellow students and I have worked very hard to raise the small stub of the Mauritian Tomb Bat and turn it into a credible article. We would like to submit it to the Wikipedia world to have it reviewed by knowledgeable people who are just as determined as we are to shed light on a subject and do it justice. We would like it to be a good article that is factual, correctly formatted, and that is presentable to the Wiki world. We would like to in the future submit it to possibly GA, or maybe even FA, but in order to obtain this we will need the insight and guidance of veteran Wikipedians and scholars. We are willing to take the hits. We would especially like to know what data we are missing, any references we missed, or other mistakes that hold back the article. Thanks you so much, Jraffe0404 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hello project member(s)! One broad concern I have is that there don't appear to be enough wikilinks. If a term seems complex and has an article that adequately explains it...wlink it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, and this is by no means critical at this stage in the game, can the range map be zoomed in on Africa (I will not feel bad if this comment goes unrecognized, there's a lot of work to be done before we need to worry about the appearance of the range map).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but if it could be done with respect that would be nice. if you are seeking someone to expend the time to critique your work - then placing such prerequisites is probably not the best way to solicit volunteers. Frankly, if the critique improves the work - we need not be hyper-sensitive to the attitude by which "the hits" are given. What do you want - a smiley face beside your grade? --JimmyButler (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And candy after!? :-D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Fixed. :) :), haha ) --Jraffe0404 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone ran it through the copy-edit mill pretty good. It reads a lot better now.

( A stylistic comment I have is the lead needs to be a little more encompassing and needs to follow the layout of the article a little better. For instance, the bit about it being of 'least concern' is in the middle of the lead while it's the last section in the article. )--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment:Which paper is ref #14 referring to? I've gone through and fixed a couple of ref things but this one stands out.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)