Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Triaenops menamena/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 SandyGeorgia 02:37, 16 July 2010 [1].

---

Triaenops menamena

Triaenops menamena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Triaenops menamena/archive1

Nominator(s): Ucucha 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bats are an underrepresented topic on Wikipedia—a pity considering their diversity and the many interesting aspects of their biology. This article is about a species from Madagascar with a nice noseleaf and giant (well, not so giant) roosting colonies. It has been improved by a GA review by Jimfbleak and I hope you will find it worthy of the FA star. Ucucha 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Milne Edwards is hyphenated in the References, not in the Cited list. Otherwise, sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the check; fixed. Ucucha 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: no dablinks, all external links working. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Is there no free image to be found? Photograph, illustration? It's obviously not a requirement, but it would be helpful to include one (if available) -- especially if this to be the first bat FA. :) BTW, I know nothing about bats except it's icky when they get in your hair, so I was looking forward to SEEING one... María (habla conmigo) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, no. Malagasy bats are only just emerging from obscurity, and free images are hard to come by. I'm planning to ask some bat researchers whether they are willing to release some, but haven't gotten around to that yet. Several of the linked, open-access scientific papers do have illustrations, by the way. The three digits on the noseleaf look quite funny. Ucucha 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Aha, I just looked one up. Funny little guys. Thanks for the reply! María (habla conmigo) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'll do a lit search and might add more comments later. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think I've already cited everything pertinent, but you can try. Ucucha 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• the article gives forearm length in the lead, but isn't wingspan a size indicator that more readers will be familiar with?
  • Perhaps, but I'm not aware of any measurements of wingspan in this species. It's not a very commonly used measurement in bat studies.
    • this source gives a wingspan of 270-305 mm Sasata (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Good find, especially since I have that book. The source he cites (Peterson et al., 1995) doesn't actually give wingspan, but I added this nonetheless.
• it says the fur color is variable, but darker than another species. So what colors is it?
  • Added.
• I'd link the unit kHz in the lead. Is the echolocation call frequency a lead-worthy fact by itself? Is it higher or lower than other bats? Maybe mention that it can be easily identified from its call.
  • Since echolocation is so important for bats, I think it's reasonable to mention it in the lead. But I added the fact that this call is diagnostic.
• I'd mention that Lepitoptera are butterflies and moths in the lead
  • Done.
• link habitat degradation
  • Done.
• why isn't IUCN status in the infobox?
  • The IUCN only lists Triaenops rufus; I found a way to add the status while also making that clear.
• mention the misapplied name in the taxobox?
  • It's not technically a synonym.
• "It often roosts in large concentrations" "large concentration" seems to me like an odd construct (later in article too)
  • Used "colonies" instead.
• Google search shows Léon Humblot, Karl Koopman, and John Edwards Hill to be linkworthy
• link Jean Dorst
  • All four linked.
• "dated to about 660.000 years ago." number should be delimited by commas, says MOS
  • Fixed.
• need a gloss for noseleaf
  • Done.
• link unit ms on first use; maybe link frequency
  • Done, don't think "frequency" is a necessary link.
• titles of French articles should have a translation, n'est pas?
  • I don't usually do that (I've cited Spanish and Portuguese and perhaps other sources in previous FAs).
• Lit review: Looks like you got all the good stuff already. Here's a few more comments:
• this source (p.392) says that it (as. T. rufus) is an obligate cave-dweller
  • I had read about that book, but hadn't had a chance to look at it yet. I got the chapter on Malagasy bats now and added this little fact.
• why not mention its (former?) common name, Rufous Trident Bat?
  • Good point, added.
• what characteristics could one use to distinguish this species from the three other Triaenops?
  • Morphometrics. I added what I could glean from the diagnosis of T. parvus in Benda and Vallo (2010).
• anything useful in this PNAS paper?
  • I had looked at it; it simply summarizes the work of Russell, Ranivo, Goodman, and colleagues that's already cited. Ucucha 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm satisfied that the article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments It's not a rat and not extinct!! Generally up to FA standard, but the inevitable quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 11:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• this bat is a medium-sized species = this is a medium-sized bat

• Changed.

• 1300 m (4300 ft) above sea level… contain over 40,000 bats — inconsistent comma use

• Not necessarily; I write five-digit numbers with a comma and four-digit ones without.

• and fewer members of some other insect orders — perhaps and a small proportion from other insect orders

• Then the sentence would be "it eats ... a small proportion", which doesn't scan well.

• It is unclear how the ecological niches of Triaenops and Paratriaenops furculus are separated; the latter also eats lepidopterans but is less frequently captured and occurs in the same regions. — I'm probably missing something, but the ideas in this sentence seem unconnected. Are you intending something like Triaenops and Paratriaenops furculus occur in the same regions, but it is unclear how their ecological niches of are separated, since both eat lepidopterans? I couldn't see how the frequency of capture related to ecological niche at all.

• I do think frequency of capture is something that should be taken account in determining niche; the source also mentions these facts together. However, I reworded the sentence.

• No further queries, changed to support

• Support Comments Looks pretty darn good as always. Below are my thoughts.

• Lead organization – This is just a suggestion, but personally, I would omit the some of the details about the taxonomic confusion and summarize a bit more, as well as move the last paragraph/sentence into the first paragraph. If you disagree, that's fine. I just think it would flow better and give more general readers a less confusing introduction to the species, even if they don't go on to read the rest of the article.

• I do think it's important to mention the recent name change in the lead—it may well confuse people. However, the sentence about phylogenetic relationships isn't that important, so I omitted it. I also united the first and third paragraphs per your suggestions.

• "lepidopterans (butterflies and moths)" – For the lead, maybe it should be as simple as possible: either reverse the position of "lepidopterans" and "butterflies and moths" or just wikilink "butterflies and moths" to Lepidoptera.

• Good point; I just piped it.

• "collected by Léon Humblot on Madagascar" – I don't know what is "proper", but personally, I prefer "in Madagascar" or possibly "on the island of Madagascar", particularly in these cases, where the name refers to both the island and the nation. This is minor though. It's probably a non-issue.

• Well, there was no nation of Madagascar in 1881. To me, "on" sounds better here, but I have no problem with another variant.

• I got a little lost on some of the terminology in the Description section, mostly on things like "transverse line" and "lancet". I'm just not familiar with them, and didn't want to make assumptions. They seem like they would be difficult to explain briefly, so maybe nothing can be done.

• You can see the lancets (the three weird things on the nose) in Garbutt (2007, p. 70). I glossed it "projecting structures", but perhaps there is a clearer way to say it.

Otherwise, the article looks very thorough. I'm eager to see a more general genus or family article. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I hope to get the genus article on Paratriaenops done soon. Ucucha 15:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - Beginning readthrough now... I was reduced to making a couple of minor style edits only. I can't see anything else jumping out at me as needing improving or changing. Looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, support, and copyedits. If it's that good, it's only because Jim, Sasata, and Visionholder already caught everything. Ucucha 08:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Some references have place of publication while others don't. I'd recommend that it be used on all applicable references.
• Otherwise nice article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I removed the one from Garbutt, instead of adding the place of publication to Island Bats, because I could not immediately find the place of publication for that book, and I do not think I would be helping many people by saying where a book published by the University of Chicago Press was published. Ucucha 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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