Talk:White-sided jackrabbit

AI Photo

The main photograph for this article is clearly AI generated. 67.240.160.247 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The pic was taken in 2011. It's not AI generated. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead

@Reconrabbit: Would it be possible to add another paragraph to the lead? _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing that. Please give me 24 hours and it will be more complete. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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:White-sided jackrabbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Wikipedian12512 (talk · contribs) 21:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I’ll be reviewing this article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Everything's good from what I can see, save from my comments. After you respond to those, I'll do another check through to see if there's anything else.

First read through: Info box:

1. Perhaps replace the scientific name with one of the common ones for the info box image caption?

   Added, with parentheses for the subspecies. --RR

2. The sizes of the words on the synonyms appear to change. Is this intentional?

   It is accepted practice to use <small></small> around author citations. --RR

Lead:

1. Could you rework this to add in another paragraph? Currently it isn’t too informative.

   Done --RR

2. The first sentence of the lead has too many commas to make it flow easily. Perhaps break it into two sentences?

   Reworked a bit --RR

3. The Taxonomy and etymology area gives a few more alternate names. Maybe you should include those?

   I included all the English names and one Spanish one. --RR

Taxonomy and etymology:

1. This fossil was initially assigned to the antelope jackrabbit.[10]- Maybe change the first word to “The”?

   Done --RR

Distribution and habitat:

1. Should Arizona be mentioned, like it is in the lead?

   Isn't it? Two individuals from this subspecies were seen in Arizona in 1950 near the Huachuca Mountains, but the white-sided jackrabbit's continued presence in this state is uncertain. --RR

   Sorry for the confusion, I drafted that one a few times because it was too long and must have cut information. I mean adding a mention of Arizona into the first sentence of that area._{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 15:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

   Given the uncertainty about its presence I would rather not, to avoid confusion. --RR

2. L. c. galliardi and L. c. callotis are repeated over and over again. Perhaps refer to them as galliardi and callotis?

   Species (and subspecies) are never referred to as a single name in trinomial nomenclature. Otherwise there could be confusion with any number of other species/subspecies called gaillardi and callotis. --RR

3. Add “above sea level” to the elevation it inhabits.

   I don't think this is necessary. Most species articles do not specify ASL since it's assumed that grasslands are not thousands of feet underwater. --RR

4. ”They also avoid dense forests”- maybe merge this into another sentence?

   Merged to above --RR

Description:

1. When describing the colours, perhaps use a more common choice instead of cinnamon?

   I added "buff" or "fawn" as described by Best. --RR

2. Double that, because it then says that the colour varies with region.
3. Maybe remove “The similar-looking Tehuantepec jackrabbit is typically larger than the white-sided jackrabbit.[10]”?

   Why? It is part of a section that describes differences between L. callotis and other hares nearby. --RR

Human interaction and impact:

1. Change “individuals” to “jackrabbits”- individuals doesn’t seem like the right word here.

   Done. --RR

Behavior and ecology:

1. They have a unique escape behavior consisting of alternately flashing its white sides to potential predators when running away.- Can you elaborate? Why is this effective?

   Sources don't explain why it happens, only that it happens and it's unique. Other species like the European rabbit that have more research have explanations, but no such research seems to exist on the white-sided jackrabbit. --RR

2. ” In 1993, the jackrabbit's population density was measured at an average of one every 32 hectares.[24]”- Is this relevant to reproduction, or should it be moved elsewhere?

   Population density is relevant to reproduction as population dynamics are relevant to ecology. I have moved it to a section with that title. --RR

Pictures:

1. Could a picture of the back of the rabbit be given?

   I added the best picture I could find. --RR

2. Could a picture of the rabbit head-on be given?

   There are no usable options. --RR

Note:

I will be mostly away from devices from 4-ish tomorrow to Saturday, all in Eastern time. I think I’ve given a plateful of stuff until then, but I’ll possibly be away once you finish them. Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all comments above, so please review them when you have time. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I forgot to check this with my alt, and I’m leaving really soon, so sorry if I don’t finish. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, nice job! You made it quite easy! I’ll pass now. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:11, 18 June 2026 (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.