Talk:Miniopterus aelleni

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miniopterus aelleni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll apply any changes here also to the four other articles on former manavi bats, which are very similar. Ucucha 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, why link Madagascar but not Comoros? I'd link both as the latter is pretty esoteric...

Possibly because Anjouan is already linked. But that's not a very strong argument, and I'll add a link.

have resulted in the recognition of much hidden diversity in bats of the genus Miniopterus -ooh, a bit ungainly. I think it can be reworded better but an alternative doesn't immediately spring to mind. I had a go.

Much better.

I am presuming this is another species about which little is known about diet, reproduction and social behaivour...?

Yes. A specific problem is that anything published before 2009 is likely to refer to a mixture of aelleni, griveaudi, brachytragos, and perhaps another species that hasn't been named yet. Ucucha 09:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then is it possible to discuss that at all? i.e. mention any data but warn that it applies to all species maybe?

I plan to cover that in an overview article on Malagasy Miniopterus. I think it's better placed there, as no one has actually linked those data to aelleni. Ucucha 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ok.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: - not applicable

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: - not applicable

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Feedback from Cryptic C62

Resolved issues.

I believe the first and second paragraphs of the lead should be switched. Although the classification and distribution are important, it seems odd to discuss such details before the reader is even made aware of what color the bat is. "Populations of this species have historically been included in Miniopterus manavi, but molecular data published in 2008 and 2009 indicate that this supposed species in fact consists of five separate species, including the newly described M. aelleni." Two problems: First, I feel that this goes into more detail than is necessary for the lead section. "molecular data published in 2008 and 2009" can probably be shortened. Second, it's not clear what "this supposed species is" refers to. My suggested rephrasing for both of these issues: "Populations of this species have historically been included in Miniopterus manavi, but recent evidence indicates that M. manavi is actually a complex of five separate species, including the newly described M. aelleni." "Up to four species of this complex may occur in the same place." Very vague, and I'm not sure how it's relevant. This would probably be better off in Miniopterus manavi. "Miniopterus aelleni is a small, brown Miniopterus" To describe M. aelleni in relation to other Miniopterii will not be helpful to most readers, as few people will already know about the Miniopterus genus. I suggest just using "bat" instead. "During the 2000s, molecular studies have revealed" Assuming that "the 2000s" refers to 2000s (decade), this should be written in the past tense, not the present perfect: "During the 2000s, molecular studies revealed". "In a 1995 contribution..." This is very confusing. Why is there one sentence which mentions the 2000s, one sentence about 1995, then a paragraph about the 2000s? Perhaps the previous sentence could be revised to "During the 1990s and 2000s...". "unrelated groups within Comoro "M. manavi"" Not sure what's going on here. Is "Comoro" intended to be an adjective or a noun? Why is "M. manavi" in quotation marks here? "who has done much work on African bats." Implies that bats are like cars. What kind of work? Conservation? Taxonomy? Anatomy? "At some places (for example, Namoroka) four cryptic species of M. manavi-like bats, including M. aelleni, may occur together." Two problems: First, giving a specific example of a location implies certainty, whereas the use of "may" implies uncertainty. Is it certain or not? Second, what does "occur" mean? Do they dwell in the same cave? "The head may be slightly lighter than the body." This seems to be an odd choice for the second fact in the description section. It would be significantly less puzzling if it were mentioned later on after a more detailed discussion of the bat's weight. Lighter in color, not weight. Clarified. I don't understand why so much of the Description section is spent describing the other members of the M. manavi complex. Here's an example: "In M. manavi and M. griveaudi, the base is narrower,[12] in M. mahafaliensis, the sides of the tragus are parallel, and M. brachytragus has a short, blunt tragus sparsely covered with hair." This isn't even phrased as a comparison. It is an implicit comparison, and "narrower" is an explicit one. I've clarified that this is in contrast to M. aelleni. "Animals from Anjouan have significantly shorter hindfeet than those from Madagascar" Overly broad. I suggest switching "animals" with "specimens" or "individuals". Used the latter. "but otherwise the two populations cannot be distinguished on the basis of external characters." I'm guessing "characters" is either a jargon word or a typo. In any case, "characteristics" would be clearer. Switched to "characteristics". "the first upper premolar (P2—P1 and P3 are missing)" Because I had never seen tooth notation before, I incorrectly assumed that "P2—P1" referred to a single tooth. It wasn't clear what the purpose of the em dash was. I suggest simplifying this to just "the first upper premolar (P2)", especially since the paragraph goes on to discuss the gaps where P1 and P3 should be. I prefer to indicate clearly that there is no P1 or P3, because the rest of the paragraph about C1, P2, and P4 may otherwise be confusing. I've switched out the dash for a semicolon. "In some measurements of the skull and teeth, Anjouan animals are larger than their conspecifics from Madagascar." Again, I recommend switching "animals" with "specimens" or "individuals". Also, I don't know what "conspecifics" means. Reworded. "Conspecifics" are individuals of the same species. Very usual word, but unfortunately non-specialists rarely understand it, so I've switched it out. "Miniopterus aelleni is known from 4 to 225 m (10 to 740 ft) above sea level" I'm not a huge fan of the vague "is known" construction, as it is somewhat vague in meaning. How about "is known to live" or "is found" or simply "lives"? I think "is known" is important, because it underlines that we really don't know all that much about the distribution of this species. There is no realistic possibility that it occurs only at 1100 m at Montagne d'Ambre, and the true ranges in lowland Madagascar and on Anjouan are also likely broader. However, I changed it to "is known to live". Ucucha 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I've edited the article in accordance with your suggestions. The sources aren't specific about how closely together the various small Miniopterus occur in Namoroka (and one of the four has not yet been described). However, M. aelleni, M. griveaudi, and M. brachytragos are all listed from a single site within Namoroka (RNI de Namoroka, Forêt d’Ambovonomby, 26 km NW Andranomavo, 16°28.2′S, 45°20.9′E, 200 m). Ucucha 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, if "occur" is as specific as the literature gets, then that's what we'll have to use. In the past, authors have often responded underneath individual concerns to indicate that they have been addressed or to leave comments as to why they feel particular changes are unnecessary. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Others prefer for their comments not to be broken up, but I assume you're not among those, so I've responded inline above now. Ucucha 12:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Review complete! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)