Talk:Pteropus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll take on this excellent article. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]The article is essentially ready for GA but I just wanted to check one or two small points.
One or two citations may be needed: I've marked up these in the text.- fixed
The list of species is redundant with the phylogenetic tree, with the List of fruit bats#Subfamily Pteropodinae, and with Category:Pteropus.- fixed
Perhaps the type of molecular data used should be mentioned.- fixed
The 'Legal status' section has many short subsections, which are frankly somewhat repetitive (perhaps WP:NOTCAT applies). I'd suggest that a single paragraph summarizing the legal position across countries might be more appropriate. For instance, you could group the countries into a list of places where the bats are protected (refs), and a list where they aren't (other refs). Then you could briefly mention protections in countries where they aren't native.- fixed
"No decisions have been made as of 2018" cited to a 2014 document smells very much like WP:OR.- fixed
"lost 100–120 t (220,000–260,000 lb)" - units need to be spelled out (and arguably also wikilinked) at first instance.- fixed
Longevity is a very brief section. Perhaps you might rearrange this into a traditional 'Largest and smallest' (Diversity) section, along with most of the first paragraph of 'External characteristics', fastest flight, and longest migration.- not sure precisely what you mean here--could you provide an article that exemplifies what you mean?
- Yes, Beetle#Distribution and diversity illustrates the diversity of the group with a few facts and figures.
- not sure precisely what you mean here--could you provide an article that exemplifies what you mean?
Well, that's all done, and it's a fine article. Happy to award it GA status. Hope you'll pick one or two articles from the GAN list to review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time! I will look over some of the natural science articles and see if there are any I feel qualified to review. Enwebb (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)