# Talk:Triaenops goodmani

This review is transcluded from Talk:Triaenops goodmani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another technically complex article! If any of my copy edits have been inappropriate, please revert.
I changed "skeletons of" to "remains of", as your wording suggests they found associated bones from individuals, not just random bones. All the bats are just isolated fossils, I believe, so "remains" is more appropriate. Also, I removed the definition of "talonid" because I thought it should be clear from context that the talonid is the group of cusps at the back. (In tribosphenic [an article that is long overdue; "tribosphenic" is the name for the primitive molar pattern of marsupial and placental mammals] lower molars have a trigonid of three interconnected cusps at the front, a basin in the middle, and a talonid of three other cusps at the back.) Not quite sure whether I was right there. Ucucha 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments
"A humerus (upper arm bone) from the same site could not be identified as either T. goodmani or the living T. menamena." - I know you mean it is a bat humerus, but every time I read it, the first thought is that it is human.
Added "bat".
The map has three colors: red, green and blue. Perhaps it would be clearer if it legend gave the meaning of all the colors.
I didn't do that because this article is about T. goodmani, not other species of Triaenops. However, my reasoning for showing a map that also gives distributions for other species is that it helps place the species in its taxonomic context, so I agree it's better after all to say what the other colors stand for.
Xtzou (Talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Please wait a moment, as I found another literature reference to the species that needs to be incorporated into the article. Ucucha 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Done now. Apparently, it should be related to Paratriaenops. But I wonder how they got cranial characters for a species that is only known from mandibles. Ucucha 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you question the information? Xtzou (Talk) 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell. "Cranial" might just be an error for "dental", although I didn't see any resemblances to those species in the description, or they might have found more material. Anyway, it's not our job to determine that. Thanks for the review and GA pass! Ucucha 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Well written

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with required elements of  MOS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Well referenced

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Sets the context

B. Focused:  Remains focused on the topic

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Congratulations!  Xtzou (Talk) 14:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)