Talk:Setirostris/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 16:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much of this is as I found it, I'll address what I can. cygnis insignis 20:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cygnis insignis. Images licenses look good, and I think it passes the other criteria easily. Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

First pass, some things that jumped out at me

Lead

I'm not sure that a discussion of the !common name is warranted in the lead. I would just leave the common name out of the lead and include it in the Taxonomy section, or use it as a "sometimes known as" and include all the common names. (I'd go with the former, personally.)
The naming of the cryptic species has a few wrinkles, perhaps better discussed at Mormopterus. Will revise.
Little is known of the biology of the species, and it is only recorded at a few locations - this repeats what's in the second paragraph of the lead.
Removed, I tried to squeeze in the frequently repeated "poorly known".
amongst a poorly known group of bats - as an adjective phrase, I think this should poorly-known should be hyphenated (but I may be wrong).
Think you are correct, ty.

Description

para 1, sentence 1 The species S. eleryi has... - Seems redundant; either "the species" or its name.
done
same sentence tiny in size when compared to near relations - I'm not a fan of "tiny in size" (tiny seems sufficient), but the comparison with its near relatives would be more meaningful if there was some info about the range sizes for its close relatives.
done in part, will find the compared species, excellent suggestion

Revised, but awkwardly mention the species they were identified as.
sentences 2-4 - Sentence 2 is "muzzle and face", 3 is "ears" and 4 is back to "muzzle and face", which feels choppy. I recommend switching the order of sentences 3 and 4.
done

para 2, sentence 2: remains unknown - "is" would be better than "remains" in this context
it is, isn't it. done

para 3: I'm a little confused by is distinguished from other species of the genus; as a monospecific taxon, there are no other species in the genus.
The genus it was in before I moved it :-) will check it over again

Taxonomy

As I read this section, I found myself wondering what S. eleryi was called before 2008. I assume that it was either unknown, or described as one or another of the Mormopterus spp., but if known, I think it would be worth saying.
There are some obvious fixes, apologies for that, and I'm sure that situation can be be better described. Let me try to fix the former arrangement in Mormopterus articles and then revise this section, incorporating the clueful comments below.

some more fixes, but i will need to check this again
para 1: I find this paragraph a bit too "blow-by-blow" for the opening paragraph of the section. I think that opening with a statement of what how Mormopterus spp. were envisions pre-1988 would be an easy way to "soften" this.
revising
para 1, sentence 1: Either bold all the "common" names or unbold Mormopterus sp. 6
removed bold, with some hesitancy.
sentence 3: facilitated formal description of the bristle-faced free-tailed bat in 2008 - using "bristle-tailed free-tailed bat" here doesn't fit. Mormopterus sp. 6 would work better in this context.
agree, done
same sentence: in museum collections - I think "from museum collections" would work better
done
para 1, final sentence: I don't like this sentence. If it was described in 2008, why was it not "recognised" until 2011? Also the word "species" before Mormopterus (Setirostris) eleryi feels a little stilted. The parenthetical Setirostris here could also use explanation, given that the next paragraph says that Setirostris only dates to 2014.
agree, will revise
para 2, sentence 2: (Reardon et al., 2008) is a break from normal inline citation style used in this article
removed
sentence 4: I would link monotypic to monotypic taxon; it isn't a word the average reader would know
done

Range and distribution

para 1, sentences 2, 3, 4: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced

Behaviour and ecology

sentence 1: especially in the capital territory and New South Wales - I may be wrong, but based on the range map it isn't anywhere near the capital territory

Foraging and diet

sentence 4: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced

Echolocation

sentence 2: The bat also has the highest mean characteristic frequency (36 kHz) of any Australian Mormopterus - it isn't a Mormopterus any more
not fixed, it is the highest of … something. mollosids?

Assessment and legislative status

sentence 1: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced
sentence 3: this seems out of date, especially a subgenera or perhaps genus. Also "subgenus" not "subgenera", of course
subgenus, done. Is it okay now?

Population status

sentence 1: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced

Threats

sentence 1: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced
same sentence: humans (Homo sapiens) - seems redundant
apparently not, two different articles, I forgot to remove the links after diving down that rabbit hole
para 2, sentence 1, 3, 4: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced
para 3, sentence 3, 4: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced

Conservation reserves

sentence 1, 2, 3: " bristle-faced free-tailed bat"
replaced, saving about a page of text

Discussion[edit]

Nice article, quite an interesting read. I will check the sources a little later. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already so much better for your comments. And again, please excuse the mess with the new Ozimops species, I'm amazed anyone could see what was going on. cygnis insignis 12:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]