# Talk:Indian flying fox

I'm doing a school report on Indian Flying Fox, and I wanted to know if anyone had, advice for me, so that's what this discussion is mainly for. Sophia R. Snipes (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is pretty small. Might be that looking online for sources is a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I've been looking for other sources, but this gives some basic info as a starting point. Sophia R. Snipes (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian flying fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130623184422/http://batcon.org:80/ to http://www.batcon.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian flying fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124073636/http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/bbe/Welbergen/Megachiroptera.htm to http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/BBE/Welbergen/Megachiroptera.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian flying fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


### Comments
This is a clear and well-structured article with good sourcing, so I won't need to make many comments.
I've made a couple of minor copy-edits and trimmed some captions according to the 'principle of some surprise'.

The text says 'of the bat', 'for the bat' rather more often than it needs to - the reader knows the subject of the article, so these can often be trimmed, making the text shorter, tighter and more to the point of what the reader wants to know.
 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The cladogram is very local; I'd want to see a little more context, i.e. how Pteropus fits in to the megabats and bats in general. This will only take a couple more nodes of the tree.
@Chiswick Chap: is this more what you had in mind for the cladogram? Enwebb (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The taxonomic story about the priority of names is unclear. Linnaeus had presumably lumped the species together with genuine P. vampyrus, so that name was not available and a new one was needed. So Brünnich said it was a new species, splitting it from P. vampyrus, right? In which case, what is Mlíkovský arguing about? I've read it three times and still can't work it out, so please see if you can make the reader's life a little easier.
Yes, this is a confusing part, and it doesn't help that Brunnich's paper is published in German. In rewriting it, I tried to frame it as Mlíkovský's telling of the facts rather than asserting independently that what he says is true. Let me know if I've clarified this section adequately or not.
Much better.
"the vampyrus species group, which also includes the A ff, B ff, C ff, D ff, ... Z ff": why not factor these out, so you just write "the A, B, C, ... Z flying fox[es]"?
 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
"these bats expel waste that pollinates" - how?
Fixed, changed to scarified. Enwebb (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be good to find a suitable illustration for the 'Relationship to people' section.
 Done added image of a fruit tree with netting Enwebb (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Good find!
Most of the citations very sensibly use Surname, Forenames or Surname, I. J. (spaced and punctuated initials) format for the authors. However, a few use Forenames Surname, and one or two use Surname, IJ (intials without punctuation): these should be changed to the general form.
Fixed, all references now Last, First or Last, A.[space]B. Enwebb (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ref 3 is a journal article and should be formatted as such.
 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Refs 1 and 14 cite different versions of the IUCN redlist. Why?
Fixed, made both the same reference to current IUCN assessment Enwebb (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Ref 17 says "(PDF). of great interest...:", I've no idea why.
Ref 33 says Springer, Cham. What's that? It's actually a chapter from a book so best format it with cite book, complete with ISBN.
 Done Enwebb (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The justification for the 3 External links isn't clear - all of them are general rather than applying particularly to this species.
Fixed. The EL section was an artifact from before the rehaul; I just went ahead and removed it. Enwebb (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


### Summary
There is very little wrong with this article and with the small changes suggested it will be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! I believe I have addressed your initial round of concerns, so let me know if there's anything else. Enwebb (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That's all. I'm happy to award it GA status now. I do hope you will look over the list of nominations at GAN and maybe review one or two articles yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)