Talk:Hipposideros besaoka/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   MOS pass.

   ''A cladistic analysis using morphological data suggests that H. besaoka is most closely related to the mainland African H. gigas and H. vittatus, previously included in H. commersoni, and somewhat more distantly to H. commersoni itself. – Would it be more clear to say previously mentioned to be also related to?

   No, it would be wrong; gigas and vittatus were classified as part of the species Hipposideros commersoni until a couple of years ago, and that's what the text says. Ucucha 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   OK; it is fine as it is.

   What does the abbreviation sp. cf. mean (I'm guessing something along of "specie classified")?

   Gah, bad guess, thanks for linking.

   sp. stands for "species"; "Hipposideros sp." would mean that it is identifiable as Hipposideros, but not as a particular species. cf. stands for confer ("compare" in Latin); in biology, a construction like "cf. commersoni" means that it could be commersoni, but we're not quite sure. I linked cf. to clarify this a little. Ucucha 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks; it is clear now.

   In the lead, last sentence, The fourth upper premolar has a small cusp at the inner front corner. – I was thinking it would be good to put Unusually before it to make it clear that this trait is not characteristic of Hipposideros.

   I'm not quite sure whether it is; Samonds doesn't discuss this character further and only lists it in the description. It was probably not a good idea to mention it in the lead, so I replaced it with another character that Samonds does mention as characteristic of Hipposideros. It seems to differ from commersoni only in size and general robustness, so I can't include other characters that are specific for this species. Ucucha 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   Sounds good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Y – All claims reliably referenced. For future FA status, it'd be great if you could locate a second reliable source.

   Don't think this one is going to go to FAC, but there are no other sources I know of, and I think it's unlikely that any exist. Ucucha

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Who is David Burney? His name is mentioned once in the article and is not hyperlinked or elaborated upon. (Taxonomy and distribution, first paragraph, first sentence)

   A scientist. I don't think I need to say more about him. Ucucha 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   What kind of scientist? I was thinking something along the lines of "archaeologist David Burney".

   A biologist, apparently. Added. Ucucha 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   Cool; thanks.

   What is Old SE? (Taxonomy and distribution, second paragraph, second sentence)

   Another site in the Anjohibe cave; isn't that clear from context? Ucucha 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

   After a second read, yes, it is clear.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Y – All clear.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Y – Yup.

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):

   No images, but I would think they'd be hard if not impossible to obtain. Pass here; the prose helps me paint a picture of the bat in my mind anyway!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass—good work! Airplaneman ✈ 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it's fun to read good articles :). Airplaneman ✈ 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)