# Talk:Bat-eared fox

all 3 terms are used for the young in this article. which is most accurate? Lovebuny (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Standardized to "pups" now. Reconrabbit 14:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that it should be merged as one into "Distribution and habitat" then the conservation section shouldn't conclude immeidately that the species' popation is least concern, the article should provide the extensive range (sq or millimeter) and their population infos first. Source : [1]  🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly should be changed? IUCN doesn't provide any population number estimates or size of ranges, only population densities in a small sample size area. Reconrabbit 22:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My biggest suggestion is to completely restructure the article, based on the existing sand cat GA, with modifications.

Start with an etymology section. Who gave it the named bat-eared fox? The name "motlosi" is incongruent with the other (formulaic) names, where does it come from?
Next, a Taxonomy section discussing the history of its taxonomic position and naming, its subspecies and their respective taxonomic histories, possibly with a phylogeny subsection discussing its theorized evolution and relationship to other canids.
Rename "Description" to "Characteristics" and expand considerably. If you can find it, include mention of differences between the subspecies.
Merge "Range and distribution" and "Habitat" into one "Distribution and habitat" section. Expand and copy-edit.
Merge the next three sections ("Diet", "Behavior", and "Reproduction") into one section "Behavior and ecology" with subsections "Hunting and diet" and "Reproduction and life cycle". The dentition and jaw adaptation information should be included under Characteristics.
Lastly, an "Interactions with humans" section with discussion of threats and conservation, bat-eared foxes in captivity, and whether bat-eared foxes have any cultural depictions (in folklore/mythology/superstition, important appearances in art and literature, etc).
This is suggested in part because it gives you a good model to follow, and because it's a logical series of groupings. The sourcing broadly looks good, and the images are acceptable but not impossible to improve upon (the picture of juveniles has bad lighting, and the picture of the adult at Masai Mara doesn't really show much of the fox). I would also as that you add a cladogram in the phylogeny subsection. Overall, the bones here are good but it needs expansion and reorganization. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It took a while but I followed the sand cat example and addressed most everything in the failed GA review. Couldn't find a single thing about "motlosi" though. Reconrabbit 14:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding this here: I intend to improve the threat display image once I have access to my image editor. Reconrabbit 20:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)