Talk:Desert hare
Add topic | Desert hare has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 31, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Desert hare appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Image Request
[edit]Hi, I asked an author of a Flickr image to change the license so I could transfer their image to Wikicommons. I'm pretty sure this is the correct species but please let me know if you don't agree - it's a Tibetan Hare and the visual description seems to match. Loweredtone (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Tolai vs desert hare vs cape hare
[edit]There is confusion between tolai, desert hare and cape hare (also called desert hare in English Wikipedia). Russian Wikipedia provides different information about the range for tolai and desert hare. Which of them lives in Kyrgyzstan? English Wikipedia says tolai, Russian Wikipedia says desert hare. Are they and cape hare really different species? Articles should explain the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemohuman (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Nemohuman, the cape hare is a species complex and the related hares are very confused, but the tolai and desert hare are both present in Kyrgyzstan. Tolai hare is in the whole country while desert hare is only in the eastern part. -- Reconrabbit 16:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
GA review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Desert hare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello... I will take care of this one for you today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See below.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
Recommend a better caption for the image in the infobox.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- "Ellerman would attempt to place the desert and tolai hares as subspecies of the Cape hare (L. capensis) in 1955." This should be rewritten in the simple past.
- Attempted. -RR
- You need a "the" before Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
- Changed to Xinjiang simply for grammatical consistency. -RR
- "… arid and semi-arid areas, scrubby desert, grassland and steppe." I feel this would read better if you pluralized all of those biomes.
- Spot check of sources shows no issues.
User:Reconrabbit: Just a few minor issues, and we can get this wrapped up! Let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, I've responded to the issues you raised. -- Reconrabbit 20:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I still feel like the image in the infobox could use a better caption, but everything else is fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Using only a location as a caption is typical of taxobox image captions (Giant otter?). Naming the animal is appropriate mainly for larger scope articles (where it might be pertinent to show a specific subspecies), and there is nothing special this specimen is doing (swimming, jumping...) nor is it identifiable as male or female. "A specimen" is not an ideal thing to call a living animal as the first thing a reader sees. Plus, this has been the way I've done it in pretty much every rabbit GA I've nominated (and Volcano rabbit). -- Reconrabbit 20:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)