Great flying fox 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. Review: October 5, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals: Bats Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance). Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Mid-importance).

I would like to know more about this creature. I have this Biology project and I need more information, but everywhere I go (on the web) I can't find valid information on this endagered creature. It would be great help if you Wikipedia people update these articles and add more information. Poeple always say " You can never have to much information". I say it's true. I know im not the only person that comes to Wiki every time we do research papers( you know! Look up info and start writing. I wouldn't copy the thesis statements. I look over to information,so I can add certain details to my paper.) Please update your infomation madam ou misier.

Yours truly,

A freshmen at a certain high school who's getting ready for STAAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.186.112 (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be able to expand with Andersen 1912 [1]. Enwebb (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great flying fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, this looks like an unusually short article? Is this because little is known about the species, if so, it could be stated explicitly, since it may leave other readers wondering too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like I exhausted nearly all available sources, including getting a couple offline books from another editor (the two Flannery texts). It was a bit of a challenge to get this to a point where I felt like it was worth nominating. It had a period of viral popularity in June and July that inspired me to put the time in. Regarding your last point, I've wondered about that—is it "original research" for me to say that there isn't a lot of research available about this species? Enwebb (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can't say it if no source does. But it seems (based on the number of old synonyms) there is an extensive historical literature that could maybe be used? FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice you got a photo for the taxobox, maybe it could be cropped a bit to get the subject closer?
• Who does the name hilli refer to?
  • Probably one of the J. E. Hills (John Eric Hill and John Edwards Hill). I'll see if I can figure out which one. Enwebb (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC) The Felten 1961 ref is in Senckenbergiana Biologica, a publication that is defunct and which I have never had luck accessing. German Wikipedia cites John Edwards Hill as the eponym. I know that isn't enough to include it in the article. Do you think it's worth putting a request in at WP:RX? Enwebb (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'd say it can't hurt? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Pteropus alecto gouldi not linked in the cladogram?
  • Link added. Enwebb (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the photo of the collared individual is from a PLOS journal article that isn't cited here, I wonder whether there is relevant info in the article?
  • No, not really. The PLOS study was mostly about the efficacy and design of the collars themselves. P. neohibernicus is only mentioned twice in the text and once in a table. Enwebb (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise with the 1888 drawing, nothing in that paper to use here?
• It has an unusual amount of synonyms, what's the story behind them?
  • added a paragraph about synonyms. Enwebb (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Black-bearded flying fox is linked twice in the article body.
  • Removed. Enwebb (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The images are a bit cluttered on the right side. Maybe left align the drawing of the head under description?
  • Laddered. Enwebb (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back from vacation. I tried to upload a new, cropped version of the speciesbox photo, but it somehow turned out exactly the same as the previous version? If you have the time and ability, feel free to zoom in a bit. I've thrown a bit more content in there and it's looking a bit more bulky. Let me know what you think. Enwebb (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll have a look soon; the image does look cropped, sometimes you need to refresh a page to get rid of the cache (the purge button also helps with this). FunkMonk (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Admiralty Islands?
  • done
• It is bit inconsistent whether you give nationalities and occupations or neither when you mention writers.
  • consistent
• Give dates for DNA studies?
  • It's just one study, added year 2020
• "may have a complicated evolutionary history." Anything that could be explained further?
  • Added info on speculated possible hybridization between the great flying fox and spectacled flying fox, which the authors noted "may result in a muddled phylogenetic signal"
• "Relationship of P. neohibernicus to other species based on: nuclear DNA (left) and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (right)" You could probably add citations here.
  • Citation to 2020 study added
• Maybe it should be mentioned in captions which subspecies are shown, where possible?
  • Not stated in publications
• "The subspecies P. n. hilli is smaller than P. n. neohibernicus." Is that their only difference?
  • That's all that is stated in the Koopman ref, pg 5 "The subspecies from the Admiralty Islands, P. n. hilli (Felten, 1961), however, is clearly distinct as shown by the smaller size of three adult specimens in the American Museum of Natural History." I don't have the reference in which Felten describes P. n. hilli, as it's in a defunct journal.
• Does genetic work support there being two subspecies?
  • Doesn't look like any has been done (not that odd for a bat in the Global South)
• "Appendix II species require an export permit or re-export certification for international trade." This level of detail about a tangential subject seems a bit much for this article?
  • removed
• That Daribi story is pretty funny...
  • I thought it added some color :)
• Link Bismarck Archipelago at firts mention in the article body.
  • Added
• Link other species mentioned in the intro.
  • links added

A few comments... This might not be the normal procedure for GA nominations, but I looked over the article and noticed a few things.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reviews and comments are allowed, so that should be fine. Might want to ping Enwebb while we're at it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, my editing energy has been nonexistent lately, and I forgot this was even still open. There are no genetic studies of this species that I am aware of that would support or refute the idea of two subspecies. There's very little literature at all, but it seems the idea of subspecies is solely based on morphology. Enwebb (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're fine and that it doesn't have to do with the current unpleasantness around the world! The changes look good to me, and I'll promote it now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, not unwell (if you aren't counting general existential dread about the state of my country) but thank you for your well wishes and patience! Enwebb (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Melanesia and Sapotaceae in the lead need to be linked.
  • done
• Is it possible for the range map to have two different colors for the two subspecies?
• Link Aru Islands at first mention in the Taxonomy section.
  • done
• You might be missing a word in the last sentence of paragraph one of the Conservation section.
  • rewritten

SilverTiger12, as for the range map, I didn't make this one, and I really don't have a good method for making range maps. I think this is a "nice to have" and not a "need to have" for GA criteria. I added some links and rewrote that sentence in the conservation section. Enwebb (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]