Talk:Hispid hare

Photo

Is it not possible to find a photograph to use for this animal instead of an illustration published in the 1800's? 108.173.132.6 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. It's a terrible image for a lead image. It's a poor quality illustration to begin with, with the animal and the background blending together too much, and it's just plain old, being 177 years old. Not only does photography exist, but it's based on poor understanding of physiology of the animal. While his pods do have relatively small ears, they're not that small, which look more like pika ears. In fact, considering all things, the illustrator was likely confusing the two. I'm getting rid of it immediately. It is better to have no lead image than one full of errors from nearly two centuries ago. oknazevad (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Luckily there was a 2017 paper published with a photo that is under a CC BY license. -- Reconrabbit 20:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Predatory publisher

Aryal & Yadav, 2010 is published by a predatory journal, but it looks to me that the results are fairly uncontroversial so I'm including it as a reference. -- Reconrabbit 20:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since it was removed, I'll refrain from describing the rabbit's "first sighting" in this park. -- Reconrabbit 16:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Description

@UtherSRG It makes sense to use the heading "description" as a less technical term for the physical appearance/characters of a species. In the past I've been told that this is incorrect and should be "Characteristics" (Tiger, Talk:Bat-eared fox#Suggestions for improvement). Thus I've been changing a lot of section headings to match. I've also seen "Appearance" (Alpine ibex). Am I missing something obvious or just following a trend that doesn't carry over to every species article? -- Reconrabbit 14:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 is wrong. The standard is "Description" and has been for nearly forever. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 15:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sophisticatedevening (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

• In the lead with "Caprolagus" should not be italicized as it is a genus not a species, and the bold is unnecessary.
• which may be found alongside the hispid hare across most of its range. This is a little unclear, whose range and where is that range?
• far away as Indonesia, but today the species' habitat is much smaller and is highly fragmented. I would split this sentence, a little too verbose combined.
• dark brown-furred I feel like "dark-brown furred" would make more sense.
• estimated at less should be "estimated to be"
• It would make sense for uniformity to have the units for miles squared to be supercript like 20,000 km² instead of 7,700 sq mi.
• described as "very difficult"; conservation efforts The semicolon is grammatically correct, however since the two clauses are not directly related to each other it would make sense to split the sentence instead.

  I've made the suggested changes besides altering the italicization of the genus name, I have always seen it in italics. This article is the primary target of the genus name, as a monotypic genus, so it should be bolded. This is seen on other articles such as Platypus and Narwhal. -- RR

Taxonomy and etymology

• Pearson noted that the ears of the hispid hare were "so short as not to extend past the fur on its head", but later authors assumed this to be a mistake. Needs a citation after where the quote was from.

  Repeated the citation.

• refers to the coarseness of the fur, as the term Unnecessary comma.

  Removed

• in particular the unusually rough fur What does "unusually" mean in this? As opposed to what?

  As compared to most other rabbits. I guess it isn't "objectively unusual". Clarified in a parenthetical, but it could be done better.

• based on specimens found in the Sivalik Hills. I feel like this could be expanded upon, what were the species?

  Rearranged so that this is clearly referring to P. siwalensis.

• Several years earlier, in 1880, Unecessary first comma.

  Reworded

• and is the only current fossil Caprolagus. This bit is confusing, not sure what that means.

  This is tough for me. How can it be better described that "there are no other known extinct members of Caprolagus"?

• I recommend replace Template:Cladogram with Template:Clade. It is centered without borders, and is a lot easier to understand (in my perspective at least). The one in Louse#Classification shows it a little better.

  I will try it.

Description

• Consider swapping out "in" for "inches" in measuremnts for MOS:UNITNAMES.

  A consequence of {{cvt}}. These are spelled out the first time they are used, but are still shortened to symbols afterwards as the MOS states but not where the value is followed by a parenthesized conversion.

• a heavily pregnant female weighing 3,210 g (113 oz) was included in this statistical mean weight In what statistical mean?

  Now "average" to more clearly refer to the previous weight

Distribution and habitat

• Well written, no notes on this section.

Behavior and ecology

• The hispid hare is herbivorous, and will eat grasses and leaves within its habitat Sentence is a little awkward, the use of "will" is unnecessary.
• hispid hare will break the plant "will" is unnecessary.
• The hispid hare is most active at dawn and dusk I would say the link is a MOS:EASTEREGG.

  I will change this; have been told in the past that "crepuscular" is too technical, but maybe that's an issue to relegate to introductory paragraphs --RR

• during cold seasons may have a water content of over 60%. "May have" should be "can have".

  All others above changed. --RR

Conservation

• threatening to the species during the breeding season The "the"s here can be removed.
• from 0.182 to 0.221 individuals/ha "Ha" is a pretty rare abbreviation AFAIK, maybe expanding to hecacre would help?

Spot checks/OR

Spot checks are from references in this revision.

• Ref 1: IUCN list checks out, reliable source. Y
  
• Ref 8: Information checks out, reliable, has been reassigned. Y
  
• Ref 12: A ctrl+f does not reveal "Caprolagus hispidus" or "hispid hare" in the text, unsure if it is about this species.
  

  The species relevant to this passage, Caprolagus brachypus, is described on page 133.

• Ref 17: Reliable, cladogram sourcing checks out. Y
  
• Ref 26: I don't see a mention of kans grass or cogongrass from the abstract, did you find this in the full text?
  

  Kans grass = Saccharum spontaneum, cogongrass = Imperata cylindrica. I tend to use vernacular names when they are known and only state the scientific name when it's relevant to the species (within the same family). -- RR

• Ref 31: Info checks out, reliable good source. Y
  
• Ref 34: Checks out, was sighted there, reliable source. Y
  

Imgs/copyvios

• Earwig's: 12.3%, copyvio not found.
• Infobox image:I cannot find evidence of the commons license from the source given. Has not been reviewed on Commons yet.

  At the top of the journal article PDF: © 2017 The Authors (CC-BY 4.0). For what it's worth, the authors have also published the article on Researchgate, again with the license indicated as CC BY 4.0. -- RR

• File:Hispid Hare area.png: Free image, all good.
• File:CaprolagusHispidusJASB.jpg: Made in 1845, is PD.
• File:Saccharum spontaneum at the bank of rever Ganges 07102013 01.jpg: Self-published work, looks like Commons has verified.
• File:Shuklaphanta.jpg: I am suspicous of the claim that it was self-published, no outside source is given.

  I am inclined to believe that the uploader has taken all of these photos themselves given that their contribution history is full of photos of similar quality taken as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2019. -- RR

Miscellaneous

• Pearson noted that the ears of the hispid hare were "so short as not to extend past the fur on its head" needs a citation for the quote.

  Blyth 1845 states this in the immediately following citation, but I can reuse Pearson 1839 if needed.

• Refs 11, 13 and 28 in this revision are WP:RGATE, their reliability may be iffy.

  The first two were published in Transactions of the Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR (a work with a fairly long pedigree - see species:ISSN_0206-0477) and Paleontological Journal. The third in Tiger Paper, which is not an especially well indexed journal, but this paper was cited in the main reference work I used for this article (Smith and Johnston 2018). If the latter isn't considered reliable by these metrics then the relevant information that is cited only to that paper can be removed. -- Reconrabbit 13:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Happy with the changes and the articles right now, passing nom. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.