Talk:Ethiopian highland hare/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pick up this review, will start it shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for picking it up for a review! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

The first paragraph in this section appears to be supported by only one citation at the bottom? Is there any more sources that could "back up" the paragraph? Is this rare or? If there are no more, I would happily strike this off of the review, it's just (to me at least) having only one source at the bottom of the paragraph seems (visually) weird. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The complete paragraph is referenced by the citation at the bottom. Instead of citing each line, you could have one citation at the end of a few sentences to back up the sentences, where from the next sentence onwards the citation changes. For example, A1, A2, ... are n sentences, so you could have "A1.[1] A2.[1] A3.[2]" or "A1. A2.[1] A3.[2]" Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Are there any additional/other references that could be used? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added IUCN and Conservation Action Plan references. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

~~"buffy white dorsal pelage" - is it supposed to be "Buffy"?~~

Woops! Buff instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The principal incisors are wide grooved, and are not filled with cement." - "not filled with cement"? A: that sounds good, but B: does that make any sense? Isn't it obvious that a animal wouldn't have cement in its incisors? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes more sense now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

The picture simply has the caption "running", I get that there isn't much to add (since it is indeed "running"), but couldn't'it be a bit more descriptive? Possibly include the name of the hare (i.e. "Ethiopian highland hare running" and alt text stating that the "Ethiopian highland hare running in a brown grassy field"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch there! Actually, we do not mention the species' name in the image caption. :P However, I have put in the ALT text, and a bit more in the caption. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the unwillingness to add the name of the hare to the caption, but what about including it in the ALT text (as it is designed for visually impaired, those whose monitors dont display images or whatnot)? In that case, I think it would be beneficial to add the name (and it won't be shown to the average user). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I once included the species name for some GA, but came to know it should not be included in the caption. Added it in the ALT text! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am now satisfied with this point, so striking it off. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"(two species occurring in the same area, frequently encountering each other)" - might this be better in a note at the bottom?~~ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior and ecology

~~"Not much is recorded has been recorded about its reproduction and behavior." - something is wrong with this sentence grammatically, which is it? "Has been" or "is"? Tenses are weird here.~~ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"which forms 1.6% of its diet by numbers," - is "by numbers" necessary here?~~ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is 11.6% by weight, so if we do not mention by numbers, it might not be clear by what measure the 1.6% diet is mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I still feel that it could be worded better though. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. Looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing appears to have changed in regards to that sentence? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: I went ahead and boldly edited it myself for flow, see what you think. If not, as stated in the edit summary, feel free to revert. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is awesome! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you like it. Striking this point. Please refer to conclusion section. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"quite abundant and sufficiently represented in existing protected areas." - quote needs reference/citation closer to it~~ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced closer. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

If I notice more, I will add it to this page. Otherwise, I do not have many concerns regarding this article's nomination and no reasons to quick fail it. Its length is concerning, but apparently information relating to this particular species is scarce, so I can accept that. I cannot view the references myself, so would have to AGF and assume that they are correct. With that said, are there more online Adityavagarwal? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper again. Would reply again if I am unable to find any more sources, or add something I find! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adityavagarwal, if you are unable to find any more information, I can accept that (although would prefer more sources) due to the apparent rarity of this particular species of hare and promote the article. Keep me posted and take as much time as you need. Until then, placing

On hold pending your research/findings/response. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wait, TheSandDoctor! Added two more references, which cite the presence on ethiopian highlands (were also cited by the references at the end of the sentences). Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adityavagarwal, I have passed

the review. Please do try and add content to the article though where relevant if you discover more information etc. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]