Talk:Honduran white bat

Untitled

I have noticed that the article was changed from colonies of up to half a dozen to colonies of up to a dozen. I was wondering what is the reference suggesting that colonies can have as many as a dozen individuals, rather than half a dozen as suggested previously? The Timm & Mortimer 1976 reference only found groups containing 1-6 individuals. Nicolharper 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of addressing comments/concerns (even 11 years later), I'll say that I found a source stating up to 15 individuals will roost together. This source is included in the text. Enwebb (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

The Honduran white bat gets my vote for cutest bat ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.165.15.201 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looks interesting, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• The last sentence under taxonomy needs a citation.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The intro seems too short, it should summarise the entire article.

 Done maybe? I expanded it some, let me know if you think it's sufficient. Enwebb (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The image captions could be more specific, and you don't need to mention the name of the subject. For example, the taxobox image could say its a roosting group, instead of now just saying the name in singular, say and where it was taken.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice, I think the dates are a bit much, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The range map also needs a caption.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The image under description could say that the animal was mist-netted, as is said in the Commons description, and where it was taken.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Range/habitat should come before the "Human health applications" section. Human relations section should always be last.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• You could begin each section by spelling out its name rather than just referring to it as "it".

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "described as a new species in 1892" Write the binomial here.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• You could mention the common name of its family, and state specifically what its closest relatives are.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "more pronounced towards its posterior." Whose, the hair's or the animal's?

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "which it is sympatric" Explain in paranthesis.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nose leaf, Honduras, carotenoid and holotype are overlinked.

nose-leaf: I left one link in taxonomy and one link in description  Done

Honduras: Left one link in the lead & one in range & habitat  Done

holotype: removed reference to the holotype in range & habitat per later suggestion.  Done

carotenoid: There's only one hyperlink in description and one in human health. You think that's overlinked? I believe it's quite feasible someone would want to read only parts of the article, so I like the sections to be coherent to stand alone  Not done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I read over the MOS and see now that duplicate hyperlinks are generally discouraged. I removed duplicate hyperlinks with the exception of Honduras, which has a link in the lead (per MOS:DUPLINK) and one in range and habitat.  Done Enwebb (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Explain tragi/tragus.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "he holotype was collected near the Coco River in Honduras" I think this should be moved to taxonomy, where part of it is already stated.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "takes up to several weeks' worth" Is that apostrophe needed? Not sure, there seems to be a lot of discussions about it online.

weeks is plural, therefore it should be the plural possessive as currently written (1) Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "only found in six of the roughly 1,300 known species of bat" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The intro could be split into two paragraphs.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The intro could need some more links.

 Done Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll be away until Monday, which should give you plenty of time to fix this, but if it is fixed within the coming hours, I should be able to pass already.

Thanks for taking the time to give feedback. Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be fixed. Enwebb (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm back, and pleased to see the change, so will pass it now. I noticed the original description includes drawings[1], perhaps a single image could be made of this an added? It would certainly be in the public domain due to age. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Other Names

Enwebb Please show me where 'Caribbean white tent-making bat' is cited? Also, most "other names" in articles are not cited on Wikipedia. Simply do a search for Cotton Ball Bat and you wil come up with over 23 million results. I would say that qualifies, as the name has been used for a long time regarding this bat. Battykin (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)