Talk:Riverine rabbit

Mammals: Pocket pets Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pocket pets work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled

Hey Julia,

I thought you did a great job adding information to the Riverine rabbit.

I do have two suggestions to make it better.

1) Under the Identification subtitle, you talk about the description of the animal. I would add how big or small the animal is in terms of dimensions of the animal so people can compare and contrast the size to other mammals. 2) In the behavior section you mention how the rabbit eats its own waste products, but don't mention the actual term- coprophagy.

--Khmccorm (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Kelly[reply]

Julia, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the new updates to this article. I think there are a few things that would make it even better. If at all possible, a picture added to the article would help the reader imagine what this particular rabbit looks like. Also, the reader could have benefitted from knowing the rabbit's life span or time taken to mature. Just a few suggestions, it was overall very well put together.

-Lauren LeidenLwleiden (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction

Dear Wikipedia Editors interested in this article,

Over the next few weeks, my team will be doing a very large edit to this article. Today, we will be posting a draft to the live page. Please excuse minor errors, such as close paraphrasing, as we will be editing and proofreading this article in depth over the next few weeks. However, if you see any mistakes that we make, or ways that we could improve, please feel free to notify us, as we would be happy to take these suggestions. Our team is a group of undergraduate college students, completing a large scale edit as part of an assignment for our writing class.

The following is a broad list of changes that we made - Expanded on all of the sections, especially ecology - Integrated information from a much wider pool of sources - Added sections on endangerment and conservation - Improved and expanded the lead

Thank you, Colin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinjegan (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Questions:

- In which instances did we use improper citations of any sorts, especially close paraphrasing?

- How would you evaluate the clarity with which we communicated this information? Could we communicate this information in a manner that is easier to understand?