Talk:Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ето МАХ,всем емо,готам,панкам прива

Good article Kitti's Hog-nosed Bat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Mammals
Mammals Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
  • The "==Famous==" section is cute and would be fine for a school report or personal page, but IMHO not quite appropriate for Wikipedia. Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I have merged this page with Bumblebee bat (lowercase bat), removing the non-encyclopedic stuff. Alas, it seems that the original Bumblebee Bat page was a copy from this page] by Tim Menzies from Portland State Univ. Presumably the pictures are copyvios, too...
    Jorge Stolfi 02:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The WikiSyntax project flagged the last line of text, and I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be, so I deleted it. I am hoping that if it was an actual typo, somebody is watching this page and can put it back in the correct format. The text that was removed was:
gjreuioapgnraustellaluna/florin.htm Stella Luna]

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I did a bit of digging. That odd link that was removed was a vandalization of the External links section. I will replace the whole section. PrometheusX303 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Stella Luna

* [http://kids-learn.org/stellaluna/florin.htm Stella Luna]

This page adds no information whatsoever. Cute children drawings add no information, no matter how cute they are. I'm removing it from the External links section. 201.3.221.186 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

  • This article was created as "bumblebee bat" with a redirect from "Kitti's hog-nosed bat". Recently an anonymous user swapped the two articles, without giving a reason for the move. Furthermore, the move was done using cut-and-paste, which caused most of the original article's history to be lost.
    If no one can provide a justification for the move, I propose to undo it. A bit of the history will be lost, though. Is there a better solution? Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

I'll read through more carefully soon, but just four points for starters

  1. The intro is completely inadequate, with entire sections not mentioned. See Wikipedia:Lead section
  2. The article title has the English name, so why is the bat referred to by its binomial throughout? Fixed.
  3. No imperial conversions are given for units contra MOS Fixed.
  4. Refs 5,9 and 10 have "retrieved on..." but are journals, with no apparent web link. Even if they are on the web, format as [url title] in ref, and leave off "retrieved" Fixed.
  5. I picked up a couple of errors on the first read, might be worth having a careful copyedit - also avoid drifting between singular and plural

Jimfbleak (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll try my best to fix all of these today. As for the copy-edit, I'll look through it again but I'll also try to find another set of eyes to check it. Enoktalk 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • intro better, need something on appearance (reddish-brown with distinctive snout?) I don't think you can avoid some repetition, but you don't need to repeat refs that occur later for the same info
  • Headings not a pass/fail issue, but "Description" instead of "Anatomy and Morphology" , "Behaviour" instead of "Ecology" and "Taxonomy" instead of taxonomic history would be more standard and more user friendly, but up to you Fixed.
  • Anatomy Weight range for the shrew surely cannot be correct. Also need conversions for shrew's weight and length. Wow, thank you. It was accidentally changed by a previous editor and went unnoticed for quite a while. Fixed.
  • Range run together first two sentences, ideally minimum 3 sentences per paragraph, link or gloss "morphology" Done.
  • Ecology Do they roost in the breeding caves at all? I wonder if "false pelvic nipple" needs any clarification?
  • Taxonomy perhaps clarify that the common and binomial names both commemorate Kitti? Done.
  • Refs are OK. The image rationale convinces me although I'm no expert on copyright. Prose and grammar are fine.

It's not far off now. Incidentally, I took on this review because I wrote another Kitti species, the White-eyed River Martin! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still have to fix the intro, but I am having difficulty finding any additional information about the bat's reproduction. Most sources simply say it is "not well known" or just mention what I've already said about a single annual offspring, so I'm not sure how to expand it any further. As for the false pelvic nipple, I have redescribed it as a pair of "vestigial pubic nipple[s]" as this seems to be a more common phrasing. Enoktalk 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

You can't add what's not known, the article's fine as is. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)