Talk:Abyssinian hare

Photos

Nothing on Flickr. Not having much luck with my foray into mammal photos... Richard001 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2008 (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:Abyssinian hare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 19:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello… I will do this review and hopefully will be able to start in the next day or two. The article looks very interesting! 🧐 Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments (9/16/25)

I have just a few comments:

• You have two spellings (savanna v. savannah); I don't know which is preferred, but you should probably pick one. Also, the use of "savanna" in the lead (whichever version you go with) should probably be pluralized to match all of the other geographical elements which are also plural.
• "It has been suggested that the Abyssinian hare should be considered as a subspecies..." I would delete the "as"; just considered a subspecies.
• You describe this hare as having a separated interparietal bone. I would wikilink both instances of this term appearing, but I would also clarify what it is. Most readers will not recognize that bone and should not have to navigate to another article to figure out where in the body it is located.
• "It occurs to altitudes of about 2,000m..." This reads awkwardly. Perhaps "inhabits altitudes", " is found at altitudes", or something else.
• You state that Cape hares are largely being "replaced throughout their range" by Abyssinian hares. The meaning of this is unclear. How are they being replaced? Are they driving Cape hares out of their native environments?

Reconrabbit (talk · contribs): This article is very well written, as you can see by the few number of comments I have. Please let me know when you have a chance to go through these, and I will do the source and image reviews as soon as I can. Let me know if you have any questions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed all these points, with the last bullet being resolved by removing the statement - this is mentioned in a single sentence by Flux and Angermann in their brief species account, and all other mentions of it are just duplicating that sentence without explanation. Later accounts by Happold, Tolesa, Johnston and Schai-Braun make no mention of replacement. If you're interested in the 2016 account by Schai-Braun and Hacklander I have a photo of the page (some interesting things there). -- Reconrabbit 14:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Image review (9/16/25)

Images have proper licenses and appropriate captions and alt-text. Image review passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Source review (9/16/25)

I performed the following spot checks:

• No. 1 – Checks out.
• No. 6 – Checks out.
• No. 8 – Checks out. (I added a wikilink to Addis Ababa University.)

Source review passed.

This is a very well-constructed article. Keep up the good work! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MisawaSakura talk 19:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1ʓ

• ... that the Abyssinian hare (pictured) is thought to be spreading outside its native range because of overgrazing by domestic animals there?

• Source: Flux, John E.C.; Angermann, Renate (1990). "The hares and jackrabbits". In Chapman, Joseph A.; Flux, John E.C. (eds.). Rabbits, Hares and Pikas: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN. p. 80. ISBN 9782831700199.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fort Duvernette

Improved to Good Article status by Reconrabbit (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 82 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC).

• AirshipJungleman29 I will take a look at this one. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is a recently promoted Good Article, is over 1,500 characters of prose, is within policy, and appears to be properly cited. I did not detect close paraphrasing. The image is freely licensed and relevant.
The proposed hook about the Abyssinian hare’s range expansion ("… is thought to be spreading outside its native range because of overgrazing by domestic animals") is supported, but it is phrased as a supposition. For DYK, it may be better to avoid wording that reflects conjecture. I suggest considering alternative hooks such as: Did you know the Abyssinian hare’s fur color varies from sandy brown to gray depending on geographic location? or Did you know the Abyssinian hare was first described scientifically in 1833, and had been documented centuries earlier under local names? Both alternatives are verifiable. Well done. el.ziade (talkallam) 21:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

To Prep 3