Talk:Manavi long-fingered bat/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Miniopterus manavi/GA1)
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Twilight Helryx 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article as soon as possible. I have a busy schedule lately, but hopefully, I can get this done tonight. Please bear with me if I'm being slow. Cheers, Twilight Helryx 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I just made a few changes per the earlier GA reviews for M. aelleni and M. brachytragos, and added some information about a parasite that I had dug up. Ucucha 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- There was a slight run-on sentence, but I've taken care of that for you. ;) --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just wondering, what's the equal sign in the third row for? Does it mean it's an alternate name (which I find a little odd given that they're taxonomic names) or is it a typo? Something else? Otherwise, the prose is very nice.--Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- It appears that two of the sources, The use of molecular and morphological characters to resolve the taxonomic identity of cryptic species: the case of Miniopterus manavi (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) and The biogeography of Miniopterus bats (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) from the Comoro Archipelago inferred from mitochondrial DNA are currently unavailable. I'll wait a bit to see if they come back online. But if you can find another source that works, then go for it. =) --Twilight Helryx 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wiley is currently revamping its online system; it should be back in a few days. If the links work again after that, it's fine; if not, I'll correct them. Those are convenience links only, anyway: the physical journals still exist. Ucucha 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If these were purely online sources, I would wait. But since these exist physically, I could let this slide. Anyway, there are many reliable sources that only exist offline, so I think we could get away with this.--Twilight Helryx 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: