Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megabat/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [1].

---

Megabat

Nominator(s): Enwebb (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a superfamily of bats containing one family, Pteropodidae. I believe this should be a featured article having undergone extensive scrutiny at the GA level as well as a recent copy-edit from the GOCE. This is my first FAC and I look forward to participating in this process. Enwebb (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

SC

Lead

• I know this about the megabat, but we repeat the word five times in the first para. Is there some synonym that can be used ("They" or "the species" (if that's not right taxonomically speaking, "family" or whatever is correct))?

Taxonomy

• "they proposed": who is "they"? You've referred to a 2001 study, so technically it should be "it proposed", but "The study's authors" or their names would be better
• "Two superfamilies": piped link to Superfamily (taxonomy)?
• "undergone changes recently": I'm not sure we need "recently" – this will age fairly quickly

Done to the start of Biology and ecology: more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing further to add from the second section. A very informative and interesting article for which you should be congratulated. Ping me if you have any questions, or when you've had the opportunity to address the issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback, SchroCat. I appreciate your kind words as well! I have made the relevant changes. Let me know if you spot anything else. Enwebb (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the henipavirus map
  • scaled up
• File:Macroglosus_minimus_3.jpg: don't see this at the given source, and those images that do appear at that source have a different license to this image
  • I looked at the wayback machine and it has a file Macroglossus minimus on the page in 2016. [2] Unfortunately the image itself has not been archived. I'm not sure what the best course of action is in this scenario. What are your thoughts? Enwebb (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That actually presents more of a problem. The licensing on the present-day page would be allowed here; the licensing on that archive link would not. It appears that the government copyright exemption applies only at the level of the federal government and agencies, not at the municipality level, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I've swapped for a different Macroglossus image with better licensing information. Enwebb (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• File:Melanesia-kart.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
  • I'm not sure, but is that necessary? If it a map with Africa shaded in and said it was a map of Africa, would that need a source? Not trying to be facetious, I'm genuinely curious if a source is necessary in this instance. Enwebb (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If you pulled a random world map off of Google Images and put a circle around the continent of Africa, I don't need a source for the identification of Africa - but I would want to see one for where the map came from. That is absent here. Additionally, most people know where Africa is, but not so for Melanesia, particularly not for the specific shape of the region. Compare for example our article on the subject, where the region is mapped in two different ways based on different criteria/sources. Actually unless there's a reason to use this specific map I'd suggest using the UN Geoscheme one from the Melanesia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks, swapped. Enwebb (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• File:Pteropus_subniger.png: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Source mislabeled. Found the archived link [3] and found the correct work [4]. Updated file on Commons accordingly. Enwebb (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Hi, god to see it here, will read soon. Some initial stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• There are some WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[5]
  • Some intentional overlinking consistent with MOS:DUPLINK, which permits duplinks in image captions and stand-alone/embedded lists. Many of the duplinks highlighted by the script are a result of the embedded list, #List of genera. I'll go through again and make sure that there aren't duplinks outside of these circumstances, though.
    • I have gone through all the identified duplinks and fixed the ones that were not due to photo captions or the #List of genera. Enwebb (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know that script ignores image captions entirely, and ignores repetition form the intro to the article body? But yes, the only concern was duplinks in the main text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to ignore captions. It's saying that "straw-colored fruit bat" and "Wahlberg's epauletted fruit bat" are duplinked in the text, for example, but the only other time they're linked is in the captions. Enwebb (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't see those links highlighted, sure you're using the script I linked and not the older version (which does not discriminate as well)? FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to be inconsistent in whether you place the scientific names after common names parentheses or not.
  • Fixed
• "within the now-defunct order Fructivorae" What else did the oprder contain?
  • A defunct family containing one defunct genus, but I added it
• "and was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"" I think this should be immediately followed by who did this change, as in moving the following up: "French biologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte was the first to use the corrected spelling Pteropodidae in 1838".
  • rearranged
    • Now moved back by this edit by Vanamonde93 (you appear to have differing opinions on logical flow).
• Alternate names should only be bolded in the intro, not the article body.
  • It is my understanding of MOS:BOLD that that is acceptable ("This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not.")
• "As of 2011, there were 186 described species of megabat,[6] around a third of which are flying foxes of the genus Pteropus.[7]" Not sure why current view should be stated that early in the taxonomy section, which should probably get the historical taxonomy out of the way before getting into the current views.
  • Thanks, rearranged
• One article states "As an alternative to the subordinal names Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, some researchers use the terms Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes, basing the names on the oldest valid genus description in each group, Pteropus and Vespertilio.[2][6] Under this new proposed nomenclature, Pteropodiformes is the suborder that would replace Yinpterochiroptera." I wonder if this should be mentioned here too, otherwise it would seem we are taking one view as fact.
  • Added a sentence including the alternate name
• "Internal relationships of African Pteropodidae" Why only African? Are there no more inclusive cladograms to show?
  • I do not believe so. The phylogenetic information I'm presenting is largely from two publications: Almeida 2011 and Almeida 2016. In Almeida 2016 ("The Evolutionary History of the African Fruit Bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)"), the biogeographic reconstruction was my primary source for building the cladogram. From the "Methods" section on page 3,

    Although determining the phylogenetic position of Eidolon within Pteropodidae as a whole was not a focus of this study (as that would require very broad sampling of Pteropodidae as a whole and more nuclear markers than employed in the current study; Almeida et al., 2011) inclusion of this genus completes our matrix with sampling all megabat genera that occur in continental Africa. For each genus, we included all species for which sequences of at least one of the eight chosen loci were available, totaling 31 species (but possibly 32 — see Discussion and Appendix).

  • Three other non-African megabat taxa were included as outgroups (Pteropus medius, Cynopterus sphinx, and Nyctimene albiventer), so I'm putting those outgroups in the cladogram as the respective subfamilies. Almeida 2016 builds on 2011. 2016 is where the subfamily Rousettinae is revised and Eidolinae is erected. I don't think it would be best practice to retroactively ascribe these revised/new names on the 2011 publication. I don't want to combine the two cladograms in any form either, as I think this would be SYNTH. Maybe the caption could be revised to reflect that non-African taxa are represented on the cladogram as outgroups. Happy to hear any advice you may have.

I think including and mentioning the outgroups is a good way to show context. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Revised

• "Propotto leakeyi Simpson, 1967" Why give authority here like this when you don't seem to do that for any other taxon mentioned in the article?
  • removed
• I wonder why you need two seperate lists for subfamilies and genera. Why not have just one list that shows it all instead of long repetition?
  • thanks, done
• It seems puzzling that for an article about a flying group, you show not a single photo of a flying individual. I think you could show at least a couple. For example, some of them are notable for flying in huge groups, so you could show both this and a close up of a single flying individual.
  • Added a picture of a bat in flight.
• "was paraphyletic, meaning that the subfamily did not group all the descendants of a common ancestor." makes the following explanation redundant if you just use the term paraphyletic again: "A 2011 DNA study concluded that not all of these subfamilies were clades, or consisted of all the descendants of a common ancestor".
  • revised
• "Flying fox skeleton" The species is listed on the file page, so why not state it outright as you do in all other image captions?
  • revised
• "Flying fox with offspring" Same problem.
  • revised
• "The nostrils of a tube-nosed bat" The exact species is listed on the file page, so should be stated and linked.
  • revised
• "A group of roosting megabats" Perhaps better to show a roosting group that can be identified to species?
  • there really aren't any. I would argue that it's more important to have a picture showing the colonial roosting behavior than a picture that doesn't but the identification is to species level. Based on uploader's caption of "flying foxes", however, I added the genus name Pteropus to the caption, so it's at least narrowed down a bit more.
• "have fur that is a uniform color, other pelage (fur) patterns are seen in this family" Why use a different word that you then just gloss with a word you have just used? Actually, the bolded part could be removed entirely and the sentence would mean the same but be more concise.
  • revised
• "The number of teeth a megabat has depends on the species; teeth totals for various species" Why not just "totals" instead of "teeth totals"? We know you are talking about teeth.
  • revised
• "The number of teeth a megabat has depends on the species" A bit awkwardly worded, how about "The number of teeth varies between megabat species"?
  • revised
• Everything from genome size down to taste does not seem to have much to do with description. Most of it makes more sense under biology/behaviour.
  • moved
• "The scapulae (shoulderblades) of megabats are described as the most primitive" Have been described would make more sense.
  • revised
• You have detailed description of the dentition and postcrania, so why not the skull? Seems like an oversight. If there isn't enough info for a section, you could just rename the postcrania section into just skeleton.
  • added paragraph
• There seem to be more units that need conversion, at least under Internal systems.
  • added some
• "The authors of the 2009 genome study" Why "the"? You haven't mentioned it before.
  • revised
• " that the common blossom bat had the smallest eyes at a diameter of 5.03 mm (0.198 in), while the largest eyes were those of large flying fox at 12.34 mm (0.486 in) in diamete" You link the species, but don't give scientific names as elsewhere.
  • added
• The evolution section seems oddly placed, since it overlaps with and is an extension of much of the info under taxonomy. Usually it would be placed right after that section.
  • moved
• Likewise, Conservation would logically come after Relationship to people, as it is also about human interference.
  • moved
• "he Melanesian Islands, including New Guinea, are a plausible candidate for the origin of most megabat subfamilies" Why?
  • added
• "the cynopterines likely originated on the Sunda Shelf" Why?
  • added
• Could anything be said about their manner of flight? This rather important aspect seems to be hardly covered in the article. How does it differ from that of other bats, for example?
  • added

• comments addressed thanks for taking the time to leave feedback, FunkMonk. I think I've addressed everything you've listed thus far. Starting to realize I'm a damn fool for making a taxonomic group this large my first FAC... Enwebb (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking good, easiest would probably have been a species or a genus, but I think you have pulled it off. I'll continue the rest of the review soon (from reproduction and below). FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

round 2

• "The litter size of all megabats is usually one" Any exceptions?
  • twins rare across the family but have been recorded in some species; a few sentences added
• "Very unusually, male individuals of several megabat species have been observed producing milk, though there has never been an observation of a male nursing young.[72] Male production of milk has been observed in the Bismarck masked flying fox (Pteropus capistratus) as well as the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus); it is unclear if the lactation is functional and males actually nurse pups or if it is a result of stress or malnutrition.[73]" These two sentences seem to be saying the same thing, the latter just in greater detail. Maybe they could be merged?
  • revised
• "or a loud, bleat-like calls" You go from singular to plural.
  • fixed
• When mentioning Pteropus species, you are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate to P. or spell out the genus name. If you want to abbreviate, do it throughout after first full mention.
  • Now only used in one instance to refer to a subspecies directly after using species name (...a subpecies of Pteropus pelagicus (P. p. insularis).)
• "hypothesized as a response to a lack of predators" I'd specify in these habitats/islands for clarity.
  • Not stated in ref (pg 9) "Most Pteropus are primarily nocturnal, and most plants relying on bats for pollination are night flowering. Nevertheless, in the relatively predator-free environment of oceanic islands, some species have become partially or entirely diurnal..." and then going on to list the species and subspecies
• "the Mauritian flying fox, the Caroline flying fox, P. p. insularis, and the Seychelles fruit bat." Some missing scientific names as elsewhere.
  • fixed
• Where do they mate? In roosting areas or elsewhere?
  • at roosts; added
• "some plants have evolved characteristics compatible with bat senses, including fruits that are strongly scented, brightly colored, and prominently exposed away from foliage" How is it known this is not also to attract birds or insects?
  • added some more detail about how the fruit of most fig species is consumed by either birds or megabats, but very rarely both
• "as a non-native predator in Guam, the snake consumes so many offspring that it reduced the recruitment of the population of the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus) to essentially zero" I think you need to give a date here, it can't be always like this, or it would die out?
  • Source didn't say when the snakes got to the island, but I added some detail that the population is able to persist due to recruitment from a neighboring island.
• I wonder if it's appropriate to show a parasite of a microbat here? Maybe another image could be found that shows a megabat parasite (a quick search gave me this[6]), or maybe a photo of a typical predator?
  • image swapped
• Anything on significance to human cultures? I found this image of an Australian cave painting:[7]
  • added
• " include Franquet's epauletted fruit bat, the hammer-headed fruit bat, and the little collared fruit bat. Additionally, antibodies against EBOV have been found in the straw-coloured fruit bat, Gambian epauletted fruit bat, Peters's dwarf epauletted fruit bat, Veldkamp's dwarf epauletted fruit bat, Leschenault's rousette" Missing scientific names for linked species.
  • added
• "where 31 people became ill and seven died" Where was this?
  • Germany and Serbia from monkey research. More detail addded
• "The premaxilla are well-developed and usually free." What does "free" mean here?
  • added; not fused to maxilla
• The in culture section looks good, you link some species names without giving them their scientific names too, though, and currency is only linked at third mention instead of first. Cultural currency could be linked?
  • I don't think that's the term you're thinking of--moved the link to currency, though
• This is more of a subjective, aesthetic point, but I'm not sure that volcano image last is worth the huge white space it creates before the references. The image isn't essential anyhow, seems decorative.
  • removed
• You link typhoon at second instead of first mention.
  • moved
• "Flying foxes have been nearly exterminated from the island of Anatahan following a series of eruptions beginning in 2003." Of what species?
  • not stated in source, p415 For example, in the Northern Marianas, recurring volcanic activity since 2003 has eliminated nearly all forest and flying foxes on the island of Anatahan (C. C. Kessler, pers. comm.), but I added a source that identifies one of the species
• Rodrigues flying fox is linked but no scientific name is given.
  • added
• "Many of their lineages likely originated in Melanesia, then dispersed over time to mainland Asia, the Mediterranean, and Africa." Doesn't seem to be stated specifically outside the intro.
  • That sentence isn't listed word for word but I believe the content is adequately summarized, especially now that I have a range and habitat section. I'm summarizing parts of biogeography (where they originated) and range and habitat (where they are now)
• It seems there could be a section on distribution and habitat?
  • added

Nice video! FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Only members of one genera" Genera is plural, should be genus.
  • ah, thanks
• "This low reproductive output means that after a population loss their numbers are slow to rebound" Can't find this mentioned outside the intro.
  • Added a sentence to reproduction to make this more explicit

Comments addressed FunkMonk. Enwebb (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - very nice first FAC. Hope to see more bats around here! FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Verification:

• Spotchecks: with first FAC nominations I normally carry out a sample of spotchecks on citations, but this is proving nearly impossible, due to the very wide page ranges on most of the sources to which you provide links. In many cases, page ranges run to 30+ pages (for ref 20 the range is 81 pages). To assist verification, citations need to be related to specific pages within these ranges.

Can you link the policy to how wide a page range should be? That way I can specifically target the references that are non-compliant.

• There's something odd about ref 19. The source is in fact the same article as in ref 18, but you have introduced an author "Cunhaalmeida" who I don't believe exists – check this out.

thanks, fixed

• Links:

• Link in ref 112 does not go to the required page

Ref redundant/holdover from before revamp; removed

• Otherwise, links to sources are working, per the checker tool

• Formats

• Ref 25 requires page no.

added

• Ref 58 requires retrieval date

Ref redundant/holdover from before revamp; removed

• Ref 114: "World Health Organisation" should not be italicised

The references looks like this <ref name="who">{{cite web|url=https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/marburg-haemorrhagic-fever| title=Marburg Haemorrhagic Fever| website=World Health Organization| access-date=30 May 2019}}</ref>; <ref name="WHO">{{cite web| url=http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/nipah-virus| title=Nipah virus| website=World Health Organization| publisher=WHO| date=30 May 2018| access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> I'm not adding text formatting, I just accurately listed it as the title of the website and it's adding that formatting.

• Ref 115 requires retrieval date

Found the date I added that reference with wikiblame; access date added

• Be consistent in the inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations in book sources

fixed

• Be consistent in the style of p. range formats – see e.g. refs 56, 57, 59 etc

thanks, fixed

• Quality/reliability. The sources are comprehensive, a large proportion being from academic journals. They appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton thanks for the feedback. I think your points have largely been addressed, excepting your point about more specific page ranges. I'd be happy to narrow that down for some refs, but would like some more clarification on what an acceptable page range is. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not mainly a question of defining an acceptable range; the issue is how to assist source verification of the information given in the article. Take, for example, ref 2, Almeida et al. There are 16 citations to this source, within the page range 73–90. Surely it is possible to cite most or all of these to specific pages within this range? Or take ref 16, Giannini & Simmons, which supports the sinple statement "In 1917, Danish mammalogist Knud Andersen divided Pteropodidae into three subfamilies: Macroglossinae, Pteropinae (corrected to Pteropodinae), and Harpyionycterinae". This surely doesn't need a 15-page range? Or take ref 61, which supports the half-statement "The larger average body size of megabats compared to echolocating bats..." but refers me to 21 pages of source text! I could go on with further examples. The general principle to follow is to be as specific as you can in defining your source pages; I'd say, personally, that ranges should not exceed 5 pages except in special circumstances, e.g. if you are referring to the whole content of an article rather than to specific information within it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For the scientific, peer-reviewed papers I used to write this article, it is highly common for "Works cited" sections to not include any information about page numbers at all. I understand what you're saying about assisting in citation spot-checks, but narrowing page ranges down to 5 pages or less for 150 references seems a bit excessive. I'll see what I can do to make the page ranges narrower, though. It just may take a while. Enwebb (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Many page ranges have been made narrower now. Enwebb (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

Thanks for bringing such a broad topic to FAC. Feel free to revert my copyediting if I change the meaning unintentionally.

• "making them more susceptible to threats" In the lead, I don't think this fragment adds much; I'd just tweak the previous to "slow to recover after a decline", or equivalent; that's sufficient.
  • removed
• Generally, the second paragraph of the lead doesn't flow very well for me; but I will return to this later.
  • lead lengthened/revised
• (The continual creation of categories outside the K-P-C-O-F-G-S scheme drives me bonkers) Can "suborder" be linked?
  • linked at first occurrence
• You anchor the phylogeny within Pteropodidae on a 1995 study, but then switch to using the present tense when discussing material sourced to 2011...In general, you could afford to use more "according to a study in YYYY", I think.
• I wonder if the current internal classifications would be better presented as a table? Apologies, it means more work for you; but it might provide a very compact way to convey information that isn't applicable to the entire clade. See Viperidae for the first example I could find.
  • I'm wondering if this thought still applies now that I've condensed the two lists into a single list, which cannot be replaced with a table in my opinion
• Can "simple ears" be linked and/or explained?

It is explained in the sentence directly after it's mentioned: The simple appearance of the ear is due in part to the lack of tragi (cartilage flaps projecting in front of the ear canal), which are found in many microbat species

• "The maximum number of breaths per minute also varied" If you're referring to a specific measurement, then you should mention that; otherwise, this should be "varies"
  • Rephrased this to frame that these were the results recovered in one specific study
• "The ancestor of the crown group of Pteropodidae, or all living species" The "all living species" is ambiguous here; species of what?

That was my attempt to gloss the explanation of crown group where all living species refers to Pteropodidae

• If island hopping is unlikely for all smaller megabats, then how did those smaller megabats get to Africa? If this isn't known, then surely it's a paradox worth mentioning?

That content is in the preceding several sentences: How megabats reached Africa is also unknown. It has been proposed that they could have arrived via the Middle East before it became more arid at the end of the Miocene. Conversely, they could have reached the continent via the Gomphotherium land bridge, which connected Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to Eurasia.

• "Different species of megabats have reproductive adaptation" Something grammatically off
  • fixed
• Species aren't inherently invasive or native; they are so in specific locations, which are helpful to include immediately after you describe them as invasive or native.
  • revised
• "agricultural conflict" is an odd term; the bats aren't practicing agriculture.
  • rephrased
• In general, the prose in this article strikes me as being good, but not quite at FAC levels. I'm not going to oppose over this yet, because I may be able to do more copyediting later; essentially, I think it could be tightened without loss of information in several places.

That's all I have for now. Essentially this is a very comprehensive and well-researched article; but I do think the prose could use tightening. I will try to find the time to copy edit it some more. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

round 2

Okay, going to focus on prose concerns here, but there's a few other points too. I think this article is good, within striking distance of being an FA, but the prose is still wordy and/or unclear in places. I'll also try to do some copy-editing myself.

• In general, for such a long article, the lead is quite short; I think you could flesh it out.
  • lengthened
• "Gray's spelling ... was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"... Bonaparte was the first to use the corrected spelling Pteropodidae". Quite confusing; if Bonaparte was the first, who changed Gray's spelling? I would take a guess that you could drop " and was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"" and be better off.
  • removed
• I missed the fact earlier that the phylogeny was only that of African megabats; is a complete phylogeny unavailable? Isn't it potentially misleading to have only an African phylogeny here, as the clades this shows as sister may not actually be?
  • I have an explanation above to FunkMonk about how I created this phylogeny and my concerns about cobbling together papers to create a complete phylogeny. Let me know what advice you have.
• If the patterning numbers are based on a specific study, and might change based on taxonomic revision, it might need in text attribution.
  • revised
• I think for technical anatomical terms, a link or an explanation is good. Both is overkill. I'd prefer to stick with just the link.
  • I was following MOS:LINKSTYLE which says The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.
    • Okay, fair; but I think that applies only to links that a general reader would be completely flummoxed by. I'll check back to see if there are specific ones that could use trimming.
• "The digestive system is ... and is shorter than ..." This is confusing; is the digestive system shorter? Or is this the transit time? Same for the next sentence.
  • rephrased
• I don't think picograms is an appropriate measure to use for size, as it's not a measure of size, but of weight/mass. When biologists discuss genome size, they are usually referring to number of base pairs. I'd also retitle that subsection just "genome" for this reason.
  • Weight is size, though (and I'm echoing the exact terminology used in the RS). The article I'm using as a reference there is entitled The genome sizes of megabats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) are remarkably constrained with the authors saying The present study provides genome size estimates for 43 species of megabats in an effort to fill this gap and to test the hypothesis that all bats, and not just microbats, possess small genomes. Enwebb (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, it's still only a proxy, though. It's not size by definition. I've made two minor changes to reflect this; if you're unhappy even with those, we can look at other alternatives.
      • I am fine with your revision, but weight is indeed an aspect of size, as is length, volume, width... What's used in the RS is what's verifiable.
• "but only the Pteropus species had S-cones, which detect the shortest wavelengths of light (blue and/or ultraviolet)" This is confusing, as in humans, S-cones detect blue but not ultraviolet. Can you clarify? Perhaps you need "blue and/or ultraviolet, depending on the species"?
  • It is likely but not confirmed that some megabats can see UV light. From the referenced study:

    Hence, we cannot say whether the fruit bat S-cones are blue or UV sensitive...It appears that the Chiroptera represent a second eutherian order besides Rodentia in which some species have UV-tuned rather than blue-tuned S-opsins [recent review: Peichl, 2005]. Our observation of colorless lenses in the fruit bats is compatible with a presence of UV-sensitive cones, as UV-absorbing lenses often have a yellowish coloration. However, to firmly establish whether UV light reaches the retina, and whether fruit bats are UV sensitive, one will have to measure the spec-tral transmission of the lens and cornea, and the spectral absorption of the S-opsin in vivo or in vitro.

  • anyway, rephrased
• I'm not certain about the use of the term "color blind" here, as in humans, it's used to refer to individuals that have two types of cones. I think you could stick to saying "unable to detect color", or something like that.
  • rephrased
• Link/explain "crepuscular" at first use, rather than later.
  • link moved
• "Megabats, like all bats, are long-lived relative to their size" Again, somewhat confusing; if all bats are long-lived, then what are they long-lived relative to? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Also, this sentence could be used as the first in the section, eliminating the one-line paragraph.
  • moved and added "for mammals"
• When you're listing species that have a certain characteristic, it really jars to have some be listed with their common name and some with their scientific name. I think some piped links in those situations would help (You could go either way, it just needs to be consistent).
  • I think I addressed the instances you're referring to in the section #Internal systems
• "Young Egyptian fruit bats acquire "dialect"" Why not "a dialect", and why does dialect have to be in quotes?
  • changed
• "nearly 188" Either give the exact number, or use a more round figure after "nearly".
  • From the RS: Marshall reported that nearly 188 kinds of plant genera are the food source of megabats
• "Notably, flying foxes can transmit lyssaviruses, which cause rabies. In Australia the rabies virus is not naturally present; Australian bat lyssavirus is the only lyssavirus present." This is confusing; if lyssaviruses cause rabies, what is the rabies virus? I suspect it should be "some of which cause rabies".
  • rephrased
• "Culling" is just a fancy way of saying "planned killing". Is there anything to show that the culling is different from the crop-related hunting described earlier? If so, some rephrasing may be necessary. If not, why were they culled?
  • Stated "Additionally, they are culled for actual or perceived damage to agriculture, especially to fruit production." I think the difference is as you stated. Culled implies planning. Preemptive killing. Other killing is reactive. Rephrased.
• That paragraph also starts with a sentence about intentional killing, and then moves to material about accidental killing. I think they need to be segregated in different paragraphs (or you need to rework the first sentence so it covers the whole paragraph).
  • first sentence rewritten

• comments addressed: thanks for taking the time to leave comments, Vanamonde93. I believe I have largely addressed your concerns thus far. Enwebb (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Nominator has worked through all my concerns; "tentative" because this has evolved so much during the FA process that I'm not a 100% sure new issues haven't arisen...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I agree, megabat is getting more "mega" by the minute! Hopefully approaching comprehensiveness very soon, though... Enwebb (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

@Enwebb: What is the status of addressing outstanding remarks from FunkMonk and Vanamonde93? Unsigned inline replies are making it difficult to follow updates. This is dropping near the bottom of the list so I'd like to see some substantial progress on wrapping up those reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain I've been out of town at a conference all week. Didn't realize there was a time limit. I should be able to work on this more this weekend. Enwebb (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There's not a time limit per se, but we like to see forward progress while the nomination is active in the queue. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, I believe the outstanding concerns have been addressed. What are the next steps for the FAC? Enwebb (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Thanks for the heads-up! The next time I or Ian gets a chance to run through the list, we will review the activity here and determine whether there is sufficient review and consensus for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.