Talk:Setirostris

Setirostris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
April 26, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 8 October 2014 by reviewer Arthur goes shopping (talk · contribs).

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Australia: New South Wales / South Australia / Northern Territory / Queensland / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Setirostris is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Queensland, or the State Library of South Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

rating

@Enwebb: IF you are interested … This looks like a very fine article, if I check it over would you be able to do the same. This could be the GAN worthy with just a little attention, at a glance, what do you think? cygnis insignis 15:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis yeah definitely! Shouldn't be too much work to get this nominated. I don't have a lot of free time in the next few days but should be able to put in a good amount of work over the weekend. Enwebb (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb, please, when it suits you to do so. It is a bit odd that it wasn't nominated, there is a lot of things that reviewers look for and they must have done their research into that too. Letting the primary contributor know seems polite, I will do that too. cygnis insignis 16:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been merely doing a copyedit, and may have made a couple of blunders, cheers for picking that up Enwebb. I am left aligning the text while building and checking, I hope that is okay, I can restore the ref columns and images as left align, now or when I am done, let me know if that is currently interfering with others contributing. cygnis insignis 07:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: apologies, the answer is above, it is just temporary. Also, do want you think with section headings. cygnis insignis 16:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis no worries! What about the section headings? Also, this is written in Australian English, right? I will try to be mindful of that as I write but obviously I don't know what I don't know so please correct any errors of spelling or usage :) Enwebb (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bother about AuEn, I will internationalise the language if I can; if I slip then please flag it for attention because I pride myself on being able to write in AmEn and some form of middle ground. I love it all, except perhaps american spelling, Webster was a wild-man! I inserted a couple of Au terms because there is no equivalent term for some things. "No worries", we really do say that a lot :) The phrase "too easy" was trending for while, meaning pretty much the same thing. AS for section headings, I tend to dump stuff and hope the sections emerge, which makes hard work for my collaborators. cygnis insignis 17:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: left align, a reviewer may also mention MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and the 'sandwiching' effect. My preference is to use the default, for technical and accessibility reasons. cygnis insignis 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image

Not convinced this is the species described here, the tail seems to suggest another genus is what I can't look past. Capturing one would also have been exceptionally good luck, unless Bruce (the photographer) knew better I suppose it is something more common at the Mt Isa region. cygnis insignis 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

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

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

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]

Move to common name

Most, if not all, other living bat species are placed at the common name. The IUCN uses Hairy-nosed Freetail-bat, and we usually follow them. This one even has controversy over its generic name, so moving it to the common name would be even more of a win. It would also make a future FAC nomination smoother, as this issue doesn't have to be discussed again, which it inevitably will. Pinging Cygnis insignis and Enwebb for thoughts before I begin a formal move request. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, I think that's probably fine, though there are multiple common names for this species. The Australian government calls it the Free-tailed Bat. So is it hairy-nosed or bristled-faced? And then variation in whether it is a free-tailed bat or a freetail-bat.

"Bristle-faced Free-tailed Bat": 1,650 google results, 13 google scholar results
"Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat": 524 google results, 12 google scholar results

So perhaps bristle-faced is the more common name. Enwebb (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed this answer for a year, Enwebb! I tried to Google it using quotation marks (such as "Bristle-faced Free-tailed Bat"), which then searches for only that sequence of words, and then "Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat" actually had slightly more hits... So I cna see why it would be difficult to choose. The IUCN uses Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat, for what it's worth. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]