Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a460f7a9b9bd1e9f

Jump to content

Talk:Manavi long-fingered bat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Twilight Helryx in topic GA Review
Good articleManavi long-fingered bat 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
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 24, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that recent molecular and morphological research has led to the identification of five species within the Malagasy bat species Miniopterus manavi—M. aelleni, M. brachytragos, M. griveaudi, M. mahafaliensis, and M. manavi itself?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Twilight Helryx 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • Hmm...As much as I would love to do what I mentioned before, I feel that it might be best if we wait until the site comes on again. That way, we can be sure we won't run into any trouble. Hope this is all right with you.--Twilight Helryx 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  1. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  1. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
  1. A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: