Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Setirostris/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2019 [1].

Setirostris

Nominator(s): cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many hands involved and I did my best to alert them. Credit to the bat task group or mammal project, wikipedia? I've just done a bit of this and that, checking over what I found and am guessing it is close to ready. cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

opinions seem to vary, I modified the captions and hope that is okay with whoever added them. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, however, the images need some sort of verification or removal. I'm happy with a link to commons if no one chases it up, I ought to have asked about getting that done beforehand. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

Will have a look soon, but first thought, why is the title not the common name, as in most other articles about living bats? Other preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is at the common name, but moved to the genus from the binomen. Churchill, the bat expert, says they don't have common names because they are not commonly known :( There is only one source that attempted to formalise vernacular, and this has been largely ignored as workers and enthusiasts actually began serious research. Let's not beat around the bush: I know what you are getting at, and you know the position I have adopted, the taxon's name is the default, but isolating a name that is not going to cause a reaction amongst page title enthusiasts is nigh impossible. Your best bet at page hits is "Mormopterus sp. 6.". Setirostris eleryi is the common name, truthfully, and it is almost as pretty as the animal and crucial to understanding these creatures. Beyond that, if it is something I agreed to in the last review then go ahead and do it, surely easier than noting it here? cygnis insignis 21:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, common name, as in vernacular name. I see the IUCN uses "Hairy-nosed Freetail-bat".[2] I am not a page title Nazi myself, just wondering why this one sticks out, and what standards we should follow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I moved it there is the short answer, what I say would apply to nearly all bats in Australia and any other article on a mammal species that is elevating a name someone made up to remind them of 'Home' in mother England before explaining to authorities how to eradicate them from existence … just some context for you. Hope you enjoy article. cygnis insignis 21:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It goes against the naming standards used on Wikipedia, though, and consistency isn't exactly a bad thing. And others below seem to agree. Another issue seems to be that there is disagreement even to which genus this belongs to (IUCN uses Mormopterus), and this issue would also be circumvented if you simply use the common name. In any case, I'm waiting for answers on the other issues I brought up (more to come as I read along, once the others are fixed). FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 'common name'? I regard this as an open and collaborative exercise, the article is open to edits and and moves, however, my personal interest in waning after doing what I can to to contribute and present the sum of information regarding this population. What are the rules here, do I withdraw the nomination until the big letters at the top satisfy some cultural bigotry? cygnis insignis 14:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a matter of consistency across articles. And, as I mentioned, it will circumvent the issue of there apparently being disagreement as to what genus it belongs to, which makes the current title less neutral. No need to withdraw anything (I have little doubts as to the qualities of the article's information itself), but when three separate reviewers make a suggestion, it might be a good idea to take it into consideration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good deal of duplinks, I think I linked this script to help once:[3]

A copy-editor added some duplinks,acknowledging that they were that. but thought it helpful as they read through for the third or fourth time. Shall I ping them? cygnis insignis 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably split the intro into three paragraphs.

done cygnis insignis 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why this doesn't begin with taxonomy, as practically all other mammal articles?

done. cygnis insignis 15:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images should probably have their borders removed.
Single sentence sections are discouraged, but perhaps there was no good way around here.

Sources review

Spotchecks not carried out
Format issues

Refs 7 and 8 "Csiro publishing" versus Ref 16 "CSIRO publishing"

Altered to CSIRO, don't recall it changing to lower case although that is the name.

Ref 20: Publisher (NSW Government: Office of Environment & Heritage) should not be in italics

Altered to publisher=

Security issue: I am getting a warning message from the link in Ref 12: "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead", followed by: "Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to ausbats.org.au. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details". Are you getting the same message?

That's unfortunate, it is an unpublished report that was a key source in evaluations, cited by the state and IUCN,. I will try to work around it, see if it can be wheedled out.

Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required FAC standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brianboulton for doing a source check, crucial to get this right, I will address this over the next day or two. cygnis insignis 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One item pending, thanks again. cygnis insignis 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Mattximus

Quick comment, looking around it appears to be called the Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat [4]. Is there a reason this name is not included in the opening sentence, or even the title of the article? Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably okay to call the species that, if you wish, but meaningless without an 'available name' that refers to an accepted description of the article's scope. op cit L., et al cygnis insignis 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note and agree with the comment from Mattximus above
you have many duplicate links, consider using this scrip
In the lead, why go for the over-technical "molossid" and "microchiropterans" rather than the more transparent "free-tail" and "microbat" they in any case redirect to?
The presence of stout bristles on the thin muzzle and face of S. eleryi distinguishes them from similar genus Ozimops— "distinguishes it" unless you mean the bristles!
was regarded as tiny when compared to species of Mormopterus, the genus of smaller bats in which they were variously placed. this means it's tiny compared to smaller bats, which makes no sense, I assume you mean "genus of small bats"
Link dorsal, ventral, glans penis
Australian Chiroptera— how does this differ from Australian bats?
cattle pastoralist lease (station) — just "cattle station" with its link rather than the obscure term which I guess isn't used in everyday conversation
[2][11][4][10][12][13]— six refs for one sentence??
3 to 4 metres (9.8 to 13.1 feet) — conversion has more sig figs than the original, should be "3 to 4 metres (10 to 13 feet)"

Otherwise looking good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

A few quick comments; I didn't read all the way through.

I'm surprised there's no link to bat and/or free-tailed bat in the first sentence.
"Earlier common names" Earlier than what?
Why the 'Single quotes' in the lead? And elsewhere?
Does the second half of the first paragraph need to be there? It feels rather specific.
"Mormopterus sp. 6" is not a common name - surely?

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: just use the {{@FAC}} template (i.e., @FAC coordinators: ) to summon a coord. None of my business, of course, but it seems a shame to withdraw—this seems to be progressing OK? ——SerialNumber54129 11:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are a few complications, one is a heavily cited ref that is now inaccessible. I'll unpick it it all one day, but prefer to invest in building on C/B content than fiddle with FA articles; I had hoped to learn something I didn't know about editing. cygnis insignis 11:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi. I wish to withdraw this candidate. Cheers. cygnis insignis 11:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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