User talk:Enwebb/sandbox

Overall Impression:

I really like what you did with this article. You pretty much completely re-wrote the entire thing except the first paragraph, which is impressive. I like the additional photos of the actual organism and distribution--they give the article more depth. I also really like you history section! I study plant fossils, so I’m a fan of anything fossil related. It looks like you’ve found a lot of good sources. You wrote it in a very encyclopedic way--you’re neutral throughout. Overall, there isn’t really much that I would change in this article.

Suggestions for each category:

Lead section easy to read:

→The lead was the one part you didn’t write, but it was still good.

A clear structure:

→I would put the History section after the Description. I looked at other random species wiki pages and most had the Description as their first section.

→I think that roosting should have its own section. I see the connection because you mention where these roosts are/were located. You could keep it as is if you added the locations of the natural and artificial roosts on you distribution map. If not, you may want to come up with another way that makes it obvious why you’re talking about the different types of roosts under the Distribution heading. Maybe you could simply change the subheadings to “Locations” of natural/artificial roosts.

Balanced coverage:

→It does seem that the History, Biology and Distribution/Roosts sections have a bit more coverage than the Biology section. If there is more information out there that would fit under that section, I would add it. If not, then I would say that you have presented a balanced coverage.

Neutral content:

→Your content seemed very neutral. I couldn’t find anything that seemed opinionated or biased.

Reliable sources:

→Your sources look good. Lots of things from the Journal of Mammalogy. Sources 19 and 20 are potentially less reliable, but they are good resources for the type of information you got from them.

Nitpicky things I noticed:

→I noticed that a lot of your citations have a space between the period and the citation.

→I liked that you made everything metric, but it would be nice to have the wing and forearm lengths in centimeters. I have trouble visualizing 108mm, but I can visualize 10.8cm. Not necessary. Just a little more convenient for most people.

Feedback from Emily

Emilysessa (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You are a Wikipedia machine :) I see that you also edited the page on the Southern bent-wing bat, but I'll only comment on the Florida bonneted bat. Great that you're contributing beyond just your one assigned page, though!

The bonneted bat page looks great. I looked through the history and you clearly made a ton of improvements. The information you added is also perfectly written to align with the "encyclopedia" format that Wikipedia is going for, which is really nice to see - this can be difficult to get the hang of.

On a side note, I'm astonished that so few natural roosts have been found. Kind of crazy!

For this line, you might want to add a date at the end so it's clear that "at present" means 2017: and have continued to use the houses at present.[11]

Could you add somewhere information about how many bats typically use one roost at a given time? Does that information exist somewhere? I'm curious to know.

Great job!