Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bat/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 [1].

Bat

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Dunkleosteus77

This article is about yet another major group of mammals: bats. They will make a nice addition to the FA list being the only mammals capable of flight. We have already got this article to GA status and John has done multiple copyedits. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the images in the taxonomy diagrams are too small to be reasonable representations of the group they attempt to depict
Scaled them up, hope that's better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest scaling up the bat wing and song acoustics diagrams
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zalophus_californianus_J._Smit_(white_background).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Rhinopoma_microphyllum.jpg, File:MystacinaTuberculataFord.jpg, File:Furipterus_horrens.jpg
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Big-eared-townsend-fledermaus.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Batlook2.jpg
Replaced link and removed image. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Craseonycteris_thonglongyai.JPG does not have a FUR for this article
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pipistrellus.ogg: is a more specific source available?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added File:Bristol.zoo.livfruitbat.arp.jpg File:Group_flying_dogs_hanging_in_tree_Sri_Lanka.JPG which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood

[edit]
Classification
  • What date is the classification listed? 2011 classification is mentioned as not including things, but it is not clear if the list below is 2011 or something else.
if you're talking about the cladograms, I've added the dates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Nycteridae are mentioned as not fitting in, then we are left wondering what happened to them.
Looks like an editor back in October realized there wasn't any mention of Nycteridae in the list and decided to make a note of it, but the family Nycteridae is not actually mentioned in the study so I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Yinpterochiroptera also presumably currently deprecated? Also a bit unclear.
depends who you ask, some'd say bats are split into fruit bats and all other bats, and some'd say Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene, and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats. (my emphasis) this does not appear to agree with the cladogram below which shows megabats as a sister clade to microbats. The paragraph below the cladogram explains a traditional subdivision which appears to match the cladogram better, so consider moving the paragraph below to above so the natural path of reading gets the explanation before being confused by an apparent contradiction.
Indeed. Rearranged the paragraphs and added a small cladogram (most of the details being the same) to show the Yin/Yang division. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me.
  • last para: This may have been used at first mainly for communicative purposes or to map out their surroundings in their gliding phase, only being used to forage on the ground for insects or among vegetation seems to be missing something.
I rearranged it, I'm not really sure what it's missing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was I, the sentence structure seemed incomplete. What you have now works better.
Wings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine.
  • The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as the presence of hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. is the presence of useful here? It does not look right to me.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine.
Gas exchange
  • OK
Internal systems
  • No problems noticed. - OK
Echolocation
  • Tiger moths: apparent contradiction between text and image caption. Text indicates aposematic signals, image states jammimg.
they can do both, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but "Other" refers to tiger moths, and therefore excludes them, followed by including them again. Maybe replace other with "several", "some", or something else that is more neutral.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear which reference supports the claim on jamming.
if these're the two in the tiger moth image, they both do   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was referring to the refs in body text, but image refs are fine. I had not noticed them at the time.
Vision
  • no problems detected
Magnetic field
  • it is thought they use a magnetite-based method for orientation may be overstating a hypothesis, based on the references cited.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now.
Thermoregulation
  • Compare section Wings 2nd paragraph: The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. with secton Thermoregulation 2nd paragraph: Unlike birds which have air sacs or other mammals which have sweat glands, bats have no means to cool themselves by evaporation, though they may use saliva to cool themselves in an emergency. These appear contradictory regarding sweat glands.
I'm torn because one ref says, "The body skin had an epidermis, a dermis with hair follicles and sweat glands and a fat-laden hypodermis," and the other says, "they have no system for evaporative cooling, either internal like the air sacs of birds, or external like the sweat glands of many other mammals." I assume it's because bats are mainly wings, which don't have sweat glands, so it's a rather inefficient means of staying cool, but I can't find anyone who actually says it straightforward   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit of a problem. Is one of the sources likely to be more reliable than the other about this specific detail, or might a third opinion be available somewhere? It is a clear contradiction, which is likely to be noticed by some proportion of readers, and while we need to avoid OR, we do need to avoid contradiction in a FA, particularly on a matter of observable fact.
I've looked through numerous sources, and for both megabats and microbats they discuss evaporative cooling in terms of saliva, panting, and wing-fanning, but not sweat. I've edited the text and added two more sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction seems to have gone, so a definite improvement.
Torpor
  • The section may be improved by a short introductory sentence explaining torpor,
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK.
  • How would bats use torpor to avoid predation?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK
Ecology
  • How do bats construct tents by biting leaves?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better.
Food and feeding

They can travel large distances, up to 800 kilometres (500 mi), in search of food. Over what kind of period?

No period is mentioned in source. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source give the impression it is diurnal or an overall foraging range, or something else. Diurnal seems unlikely.
Overall range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth clarifying.
OK, rewritten and replaced source to talk about foraging range. Migration is discussed elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Predators, parasites and diseases
  • Nipah Hendra viruses - Is that actually an accepted name? Not found by a google search.
Two different viruses: have added "and". They're both Henipaviruses as linked, and both carried by bats. Added ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now.
  • Bats are implicated in the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in China, since they serve as natural hosts for Coronaviruses, several from a single cave in Yunnan, one of which developed into the SARS virus. Is this several Coronaviruses from the same cave?
Yes. There are thousands of bats in a typical cave roost. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
References
  • Makanya2017 - checked three instances - OK.

Done for now. Support for comprehensibility and usefulness. Tentative support in general. I intend to check in later in case there are large changes. Ping me if It looks like I am not paying attention. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lingzhi

[edit]
if it had something to do with the |date= parameter, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mm, I found the warning script in [my common.css]. Sixteen errors are "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list "; one is "explicit use of et al". There may be other errors... I'll fix a few of them for you; I have a few moments right now....[later] OK, I fixed 2 or 3. You can see what I did. But thre's a more serious (but still quite fixable) problem below...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check to see if it's all fixed but I think it's all fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, also, sometimes you use lastname/initials, but sometimes you give lastname/full first name. Is that because you intended to use the full name every time but your sources provided only initials, or because the formatting is inconsistent? If it's the latter, then the easiest fix of course would be to consistently use only initials.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it necessary to have only initials or only full names? One can only provide what is available, and insisting on consistency in this is equivalent to insisting on initials only for all FAs, as there is always the chance that a reference added later may only give initials. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency is required, last time I checked. You can do it almost any f*cking way you want -- with very few exceptions, as for example when I threw a fit because one article had refs sorted by middle initial -- but you have to stay consistent with it. This is also the norm for publications out in the world. Some use full names (when available), and some use only initials. So if you use only initials, and someone adds a full name, you change it. That's why we have watchlists.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked FA criteria, 2c: consistent citations referred to consistent formatting of inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing, and a link to Wikipedia:Citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. It is possible that there is something somewhere in policy or guidelines that states that a consensus decision has been made that FA requires the consistent use of full first name XOR initials, but if so I have never been able to find it, so I would appreciate if you could link me to that place. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • you've already linked to it. Wiafa says consistently formatted using... Not formatted by consistently using. It means choose a style and use it consistently...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've formatted all the refs with initials only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your interpretation? Or does it actually spell it out somewhere in an RfC or something? You see, that is not how I understand it, and I have previously looked for the same information without success. If there is no clarification available, it should probably go to RfC as it is obviously open to interpretation, and there are practical reasons why inflexibility is not ideal in this case. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rfc or whatever you want, but it's always been that way. I suggest you try wt:fac before rfc, but hey, do whatever you want. I will not participate in it (links to various essays elided here)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do as you suggest and refer to wt:fac when I have finished searching through the archives of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria which seems like the most logical place to start. One thing I can say from my researches so far is that it has not "always been that way", as originally there was no requirement for in-line references at all for FA. I probably won't bother to refer back to you until I find something one way or another as you do not appear to be interested. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care how it turns out. Don't ping me. I will neither support nor oppose your article; WP:DGAF.... But as for "hasn't always been that way"... it is extremely possible (ver likely, even) that reviewers didn't check in some cases. So what you need for positive proof is not a case where no one flagged it; what you need is a case where it was explicitly noted as irrelevant.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll be back after a proper perusal, but from a quick first once-over it seems to me that though the article is in BrE, two Americanisms have crept into the main text: "center" in the second paragraph of "Wings", and "fetus" in "Mating". Back anon. Tim riley talk 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim. Fixed those two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First batch of comments

Zoology, taxonomy and a lot of other ologies and onomies being beyond my ken, please treat these comments as being from a well-disposed layman, and excuse any howlers. Comments down to the end of "Taxonomy and evolution" section.

  • Lead
    • "Bats are the second largest order of mammals" – is this the orthodox adjective for "orders"? Fine if so, but for a brief moment my thought was directed to the size of the mammals rather than the number of members. If "second largest" is the idiomatic form, then should it have a hyphen?
    • "20%" – the manual of style used to, and I think still does, ask us to spell out the term "per cent" (or "percent", if in AmE) in the text. Ditto for "70%" in the same para. See now comments in second batch, below.
    • "About 70% of bat species are insectivores, and most of the rest eat fruit." – slightly lopsided phrasing: if "insectivores" one might expect "frugivores" or, conversely, if one lot "eat fruit" then the other to "eat insects".
Said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence of second para goes on a bit, with a repeated "and". It might read more smoothly if you broke it with a semicolon or full stop after "refuges". Possibly the latter, as there are rather a lot of semicolons in the text (more than 300) and one does begin to notice them after a while. (I speak as one who is prone to overusing them himself.)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bat dung has been mined as guano" – suggests that this no longer occurs. Is that so?
    • Last para of lead has three sentences in a row starting with the word "bat".
Changed one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology
    • Citations 5 and 1 at the end are the wrong way round.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification
    • More percentages, as above, here and below.
  • Fossil and molecular evidence
    • "Yinpterochiroptera includes … Yangochiroptera includes" – is there a convention that the use of a plural word is to be read as singular when applied to a suborder etc? Otherwise the two big words seem to want a plural verb.
Yes.
    • "debate continues as to the meaning" – I respectfully agree with Fowler that "as to" used as here is an undesirable (Fowler uses a stronger adjective) substitute for some simple preposition: "about", in this case. There is another "as to" later in the section, to which the same comments apply.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fossil bat from the 52 million year old Green River Formation" – I get in a dither over hyphens, but I think this should have them in "52-million-year-old". I may be wrong.
    • "Onychonycteris likely alternated" – others (particularly younger editors) may disagree, but to me this is an Americanism, and "Onychonycteris probably alternated" would be the usual BrE.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "flew from tree to tree and spent most of its time climbing or hanging on the branches of trees" – do we need the last two words?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "support the claim that…"– I'd be cautious about the word "claim". It carries judgemental overtones. A neutral word such as "theory", "hypothesis" or even "statement" might be safer.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "target flying prey with echolocation" – can be read the wrong way at first reading: safer, perhaps, to change the preposition to "by".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. This is a tremendous article, but (unavoidably) hard for the lay person to take in at one go. More later. Tim riley talk 10:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Wings
    • "percent" as one word: I jotted down a comment that this should be BrE "per cent", but the further down the article I got, the more I thought the plain "%" symbol looked perfectly OK, particularly in a scientific article like this, and if I were the three nominators I'd be tempted to go with it throughout, and to hell with the MoS (which is only a general guideline, or so it avers.)
Thanks but I think we'll just settle for the MOS. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tried to rationalise %, percent and per cent for you, but you need to go through one by one and fix it. Tim riley talk
    • Something has gone awry with the third sentence, which has a bit of a citation sticking out of the end.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The membranes are also delicate, tearing easily; but can regrow..." – semicolon should be just a comma here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The patagium is the wing membrane. The patagium is stretched" – perhaps replace the repeated "the patagium" with "it"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "webbing between the digits which form into the wing membranes" – this is where the lay person (this one, at any rate) is at a loss. Is it the webbing or the digits forming into the wing membranes? If the latter, fine; if the former, the verb needs to be singular. If we're being ultra-purist, the grammarians and style manuals would have us write "that" rather than "which" for a "restrictive" (defining) clause such as this.
The webbing forms... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal systems
    • "Due to the restraints of the mammalian lungs" – it is an old-fashioned view, but in good BrE "due to" is not used as a compound preposition as "owing to" is. Besides, "because of" is plainer and better than either, both here and at later incidences.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Carnivorous bats which consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine" – the point about restrictive clauses, above, is perhaps a bit pedantic, but here I think the meaning is unclear if it is not plainly either a restrictive or a non-restrictive clause. In short, do all carnivorous bats consume large amounts of protein and pee it out, in which case we need commas round the non-restrictive clause: "carnivorous bats, which consume large amounts of protein, can output concentrated urine", or is it only some of them, in which case it would be clearer to have "carnivorous bats that consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bat calls are some of the most intense airborne animal sounds, and can range in intensity from between 60 and 140 decibels." You want either "from" (with "to", rather than "and") or "between" but not both. (I also wonder if, so soon after "most intense", you need "in intensity".)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "helps to sharply focus not only echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..." – the not-only-but-also construction seems to have gone off the rails here. I think we need: "helps not only to sharply focus echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..."
I've used 'and'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vision
    • "travelling between their roosting grounds and their feeding grounds" – I might omit the second "their".
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size
    • "It is also arguably the smallest extant species of mammal, next to the Etruscan shrew." This doesn't seem to me quite what the source says. As it stands the sentence appears to say that the bat is second to the shrew in the smalless stakes, but the source says it is the smaller of the two, though not the lighter. Have I got this wrong?
"Next to" is better wording since size can be defined by length or weight. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators, parasites, and diseases
    • "The evidence is thought by some zoologists to be equivocal" – is it possible to give an indication of whether "some" means a few, many or even most?
    • "In 2014 ... species native to northern Mexico and the West had not yet been affected" – as 2018 is about to be at our throats I just wonder, do we know if anything has changed since 2014?
Updated. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Social structure
    • "Some bats lead solitary lives, while others live in colonies of more than a million bats." – I really would omit the last word: it strikes a mildly absurd note. Nobody is going to imagine they live in colonies of whelks or hippos.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life cycle
    • "this is likely due" – the "due" is used properly (according to my Old English prescription, that is) but I still boggle at the "likely". (I privately prefer the AmE "likely" to the BrE "probably" – shorter and crisper – but it doesn't, I think, belong in a BrE article.)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation
    • "all bats are protected under the Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998; species such as the hairless bat ... are still eaten" – this looks a bit odd. I'm not sure the semicolon is an adequate understudy for a but, however, although or nonetheless here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "About 100,000 tourists per year" – a very minor matter, but on the generally sound policy "prefer good English to bad Latin" I'd make this "100,000 tourists a year".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I felt shockingly ignorant reading some of this impressive article, but I enjoyed it very much all the same, and I am quite a bit less ignorant now. I shall make it my New Year resolution never to use the phrase "blind as a bat" again. I'll look in in a day or so to, I hope and expect, add my support. – Tim riley talk 13:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my quibbles, and certainly all of them that I think matter much, have been addressed, above, and I'm very happy to add my support for the elevation to FA of this fine article, which I think meets all the FA criteria. I've never been much interested in bats (unless made of willow) but I found this article absorbing – well done! Tim riley talk 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review this soon. One first thing I was wondering about is whether it should be mentioned in the culture section that bats have become part of the vampire myth? I see Dracula is mentioned, but isn't it more general than that? Maybe Casliber knows something about this, after working on the vampire FA. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is mainly Dracula but worth looking over the sources again I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly Dracula, but he was presaged by Varney the Vampire complete with feasts of blood. Linked and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems the taxonomic history is glossed over, who defined the group, under what circumstances, and when and why were various revisions made?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level." Not sure what this means. Also, it is impossible to know how much of the fossil record is "complete", so it is at best a very vague estimate, which needs to be noted.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now considered to be a microchiropteran" This is of little interest to the reader unless you state why this change is significant.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should give ages for the fossils mentioned, otherwise their context and significance is unclear.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reflected the view that these groups of bats had evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight." This wording makes it seem like this view is outdated, though this does not seem to be the case?
  • "form a single or monophyletic group" I'd replace "single" with "natural". A group can only be single, no?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a conclusion supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera" You don't go into this level of technical detail for the other DNA studies.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could state how long ago the varius geological ages mentioned were.
I don't see why they are relevant if the age of the fossils are stated. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that those have been added, it is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One phylogenomic study showed that the two new proposed suborders were supported by analyses of thousands of genes" This is very weirdly written. Which DNA studies don't analyse thousands of genes?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera." Seems strange this text comes so far down in the section, out of chronological order. This was obviously proposed before genetic testing was done, so it should be mentioned before.
It's mentioned here because this paragraph is on flight evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an intermediate fossil bat" Intermediate between what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossil and molecular evidence" This section could simply be renamed "evolution".
See this conversation. LittleJerry (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, there is nothing there that explains why the "Fossil and molecular evidence" section shouldn't be renamed evolution? Seems to be a more inclusive, less clunky name. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyly" Define.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mix UK and US English. You have both colour and color, for example, so this should be checked throughout.
Fixed colour. Others have pointed out UK vs US spellings which have been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are the only mammals that can truly fly" You should define what makes them true fliers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slow-motion and normal speed of Egyptian fruit bats flying" Add "footage" or "video".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The digits and arms are parts of the wings, so it doesn't really make sense to have a section on wings that doesn't include them. Maybe make a section on wing-membranes, or more inclusively about the entire wing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure is a bit iffy when it comes to the "flight" and "wings" section as well. For example, why is the following text not in the flight section? "By folding the wings in toward their bodies on the upstroke, they save 35 percent energy during flight.[46] Bats save energy by drawing in their wings on the upstroke." Much more seems it should go into flight as well. I think you could move all info specifgically about flight to the flight section, and then rename the section "wing membranes".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could be explicitly mentioned that along with birds and pterosaurs, bats are the only vertebrate animals ever capable of powered flight.
Three out of the four flying animals are vertebrates, so the wording would be strange. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in the absolute sense or per taxon? In any case, the point is to show that only three groups of vertebrate animals are capable of flight, not how many of them/species of them that are flying at a given time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bats being able to fly makes them unique among animals and living organisms in general, not just vertebrates. Saying bats are the "only" vertebrates that can fly would imply that there are many non-vertebrate animals can fly. In reality, only four groups can fly and three are vertebrates. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, it may be interesting to note how the wings of these creatures have convergently developed, here is a relevant diagram:[2]
They are compared to birds in different places. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supports the leading edge" Add "of the wing".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cervical vertebrae" Add that these are in the neck.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " apoptosis only affects" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This adaptation does not permit bats to reduce their wingspan as birds do," Do they? In what way?
I don't understand. It says they can't reduce their wingspan. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the birds. What does it mean that they reduce their wing span? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the upstroke, birds partly fold their wings, reducing both the wingspan and the wing area, but leaving the wing stiff enough to resist bending and twisting, the feathers remaining as stiff airfoils; bats cannot do this because the membrane only functions as a wing when stretched between outstretched fingers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spp." should not be in italics.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should specify which group of bat you're referring to in various section. For example, megabats don't useecholocation, yet you only say "bats" in the section on that feature, while you should specify "microbats".
I replaced the first "bat" in the section with "microbat". It is also established earlier that megabats can't echolocate. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's established, that's why it seems odd that you refer to microbats as just bats in that section, when what's written doesn't apply to megabats. But I guess it's better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that they are chemically protected" What does this mean?
That the bugs are poisonous I presume. Dunkleosteus77 would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be good to get this clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added gloss: tiger moths are aposematic, meaning that they signal honestly that they are unprofitable as prey, in their case because they are sufficiently poisonous to taste foul and be rejected as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost all bats are nocturnal," Yet the article body indicates it depends on whether it is a microbat or a megabat?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are homeothermic" Explain.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use heterothermy" Likewise.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Among microbats, Myotis yumanensis, Tadarida brasiliensis and Antrozous pallidus" Elsewhere you use the common name first, and scientific name second. Why only scientific name here and some other places?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cope with temperatures up to 45 Celsius by panting, salivating and licking their fur to promote evaporative cooling; this was sufficient to dissipate twice their metabolic heat production." Why change in tense?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metabolism go down" Decrease would sound less awkward.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some bats aestivate" Explain.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems megabats roost in trees, but this is not mentioned here.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "fruit bat" is never explained. is this a synonym of megabat?
Usually. I made some changes anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the process of losing the ability to synthesise vitamin C" Why, what s the advantage?
I would think it is obvious since vitamins are important. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why I ask, what is the benefit of losing the ability to use it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fact can be observed without the reason necessarily being explained, but all metabolic pathways have an energy cost, and if a substance is available in the diet, then that cost may not be worth paying in evolutionary terms. Genetic drift may also be a sufficient explanation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mortality rates of 90–100% have been observed in most caves" Most affected caves, I'd assume.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substantial sympatry" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "70% of the directed calls could be identified as to which bat made it" Perhaps good to note by who. Researchers, I assume, and not just by other bats.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the wings, there is very little physical description. Are all bats furry? What is their range of colouration? What about the shape of their heads, ears and noses? Seems some have long tails and some have short tails?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leave behind a mating plug" Explain how this works.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems many sections are microbat-centric. For example under "Reproduction and life history" there is little to nothing about megabats.
It mentions both tropical and temperate reproduction times. Also microbats are the vast majority of species. Megabats are mentioned if they differ from the rest in significant ways. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest recorded bat is a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat." This bat will not live forever. Better to state something like "the oldest recorded bat was a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat identified in 2016" or some such.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats may be attracted to these structures, perhaps seeking roosts, increasing the death rate." Wind turbines are not mentioned in the previous sentence, so it might be good to repeat, as it is unclear what "these structures" refers to.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a winged bat cryptid known as Popobawa" The source doesn't refer to it as a "cryptid", which is not exactly a neutral term.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems rabies spread to humans from bats and "attacks" by vampire bats could be mentioned under human interactions.
We grouped all these things to appear on one place only. Since humans are part of the ecosystem, all such interactions could appear twice, which is undesirable, so we've restricted the 'humans' section to conservation and cultural significance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances." Only stated in intro. Also, this is way too much specific detail for the intro, should be moved to the article body.
Removed from lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are less efficient flyers than birds" Only seems to be stated in the intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), and comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide" Only stated in intro.
Also now in Classification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the less specialised and largely fruit-eating megabats," You don't mention this "specialised/less specialised" dichotomy in the article body.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 70% of bat species are insectivores" Only stated in intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "zoologists wonder whether bats have these behaviours" Very flowery. Just say that it is uncertain if these behaviours are for this.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are economically important" Only stated in intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest bats are a few species of Pteropus (fruit bats or flying foxes) and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon jubatus" The latter one should also be mentioned in the size section, then.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I've done the first column. The rest will follow shortly

  • Refs 4 and 5: The true source is Liddell and Scott's dictionary. Perseus Digital merely provides the online vehicle.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: Page range inconsistency
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: Wouldn't an "et al" do, in place of this mega-list of contributors? (To a lesser extent, this issue arises with with other refs)
seeing as it's already there, I don't see why it should be taken down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: Retrieval date missing
I put today's date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32: template error
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: returning "page you have requested cannot be found."
removed url since it has a PMC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47: The pdf link doesn't seem to be working
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49: ISBN should be in consistent (13-digit) format. It's 978-3-642-39333-4
thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56: Publisher is National Geographic rather than website address
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 66: Can you clarify the publisher, and add retrieval date
fixed 23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref 90: Publisher given as "JRank". To which organisation does this refer, and where is this mentioned iun the source?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 100: The title is "The Art and Science of Bats". "Smithsonian" is the publisher.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

– and here it is:

  • Ref 111: p. range inconsistent
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 112: ditto
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: the title is incorrect
Its a species page. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 119: yields message "sorry, no such page" – as does 126
Removed urls. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 131: link not working - repeated timeouts
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 132: the 13-digit ISBN is 978-0-8018-3970-2
This appears to be ref 138's ISBN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 138: you should standardise ISBN format in line with the others
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 140: the link appears to go to a different page
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 141: the website has been redesigned. link should go to the current location of the article
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 142: retrieval date missing
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 148: not formatted properly, and error in access date
Added access date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 157: publisher and retrieval date required
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 159: ditto
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 161: See my note on ref 23. The point is, this is use of space to no useful purpose, which clutters an already crowded sources section. It's not a clincher, but anything that can improve the presentation of the article without harming its substance should be done.
The paper has 4 named authors which seems not unreasonable nowadays. In physics and medicine, with far longer lists, there is certainly an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 170: Retrieval date required
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 172: ditto
All refs around this no. seem to be ok now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 176: p. range inconsistency
(now #178) Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 188: publisher missing
(now #189) Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 203: "Fox7" is publisher. The author is RaeAnn Christensen
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 204: "Bat Conservation International" is the publisher, not "Web.archive.org" which is a means of access. The title here is equivocal – as this is the organisation's home page, perhaps "All about bats" would serve?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 205 and 206 both link to the same site, although the ref details are different.
Merged and updated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 207: Publisher missing
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 208, 209, 210: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 214: "retrieved" → "Retrieved"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 216: Gives message "Sorry, your request cannot be accepted"
Set deadurl to true, the archiveurl is there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 219 & 222: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 224: ISBN missing
ISBN added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 226: Format is irregular (cite template not used), p. no and isbn missing. As this is the fourth citation of a string, you might not be losing anything if you dropped it.
Dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 238: Template error
Title, trans-title added.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 241: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Journal is auto-formatted in italics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. When replying, if a ref number has changed since this review it would be helpful if, in any note, you quote the revised number. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, okay now? LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but numbers have changed and it's not easy to check in detail. I'll take your word for it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading though now..

The lead jumps about a bit and I think needs some work. I am looking at it. I'd add the line on number of species, and largest and smallest bats - to para 1. I'd make para 2 on classification, including the new arrangement. I'd move all diet material to para 3 (currently scattered about). I can have a go at this if you want.
I think I fixed it, but I did not do it like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology section - would be good to have some dates on when bat first used.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The classification section establishes there are two suborders...and then challenges that? Is there consensus that the new arrangement (Yinpterochiroptera/Yangochiroptera) is the right one?
as far's I know, there is no consensus really   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus from different analyses is emerging that the two new suborders are monophyletic, the 2013 review paper by Tsagkogeogea et all stating "unequivocal support" from molecular analyses, though it noted that older work by Koopman 1993 had supported the traditional mega/microbat division. We have reflected that traditional morphological /emerging modern molecular picture in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Yinpterochiroptera/Yangochiroptera classification really needs to be in the lead then. The other issue is how to arrange the classification section as it still starts off by reading as if the micro-/megabat split is current/still valid. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's now in the lead; taxonomy placed after phylogeny to allow a lead-in sentence to say the taxonomy reflects the traditional megabat/microbat split. Hope that fits the bill for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta, along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and primates - this sentence probably fits better further down in evolution material.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Chiroptera as a whole are in the process of losing the ability to synthesise vitamin C: most have lost it completely - I'd lose the "most have lost it completely" as you restate and expand a few sentences later
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The material on guano does not belong in the Cultural significance section.
I reorganized it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I am happy with most of the article. I feel that the lead and classification sections are possibly still a little choppy (but concede they are tricky to get right), though have improved a lot. It is definitely comprehensive. I just need to think on this and read it again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have copy-edited the lead and Classification for smoothness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene, and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats - given that they already have been placed with them in the new classification, "should" is problematic.
The placement has been proposed on phylogenetic grounds, but has not yet found its way into taxonomy. Taxonomy always and necessarily trails phylogenetic research, which in recent years has rapidly undone many thousands of traditional assumptions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the word "should" implies that they haven't already been classified with the other lines, but in the new classification they have. I just think the word "should" should be rephrased. "close affinities" etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "belong" is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following classification from Agnarsson and colleagues in 2011 reflects the traditional division into megabat and microbat suborders. - should the list that follows be in the article at all, given that it has been superceded?
I think it's worth including; again, taxonomy always trails phylogenetic research. If you prefer we can rely on the subsidiary articles on the suborders and clades, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, I'd prefer it in a daughter article, but concede that this hasn't bothered anyone else I can live with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave it unless anyone else objects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, look nearly there - I still feel the first sentence of the lead reads a little oddly...but can't think of a way of rephrasing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, try that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is better. Could possibly be tinkered with more but not a deal-breaker for me anymore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Earwig's copyvio clear (one false positive page - material on flickr)
  • FN #15 - used five times, material faithful to source.
  • FN #7- used four times, material faithful to source.
  • FN #8 and #9- used once each, material faithful to source.

Ok, looks ok to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Ref 78 is currently dead, but as its to a journal article I don't think we need to be too worried about the dead link. Therefore I shall be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bat/archive1&oldid=1138455437"