Talk:Sumatran striped rabbit

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:Sumatran striped rabbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I will do this review tomorrow. Promise! 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this review so far! I removed the "model of an adult" image. It has no identifying characteristics - not clear where this image was taken at all. Also, I have my doubts that the uploader has taken all of these images themselves but don't have a strong reason to believe that besides every single photo having wildly different xcif data (taken with different cameras?). -- Reconrabbit 03:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 18:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC) by Edward056686

See what the criteria are and what they are not

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:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

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 – All images have appropriate licenses.

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions – The image labeled "Model of an adult" would benefit from a much better caption, plus alt-text while you’re at it. Image removed.

Overall:

• Spot check of sources reveals no problems. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 23 March 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.

GA review history?

Reconrabbit, Bgsu98: can you tell me what the GA history is here? This article is confusing ChristieBot -- it looks like at one point there was a nomination with page = 2. Was that ever a real review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I originally opened the GA, only to realize after a few days that I wouldn’t be able to finish it in a timely manner. So, I had the GA page speedy deleted and reset the nomination at the article’s talk page. There was never a GA2. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks -- that clarifies it. There was briefly a nomination template with page=2, and it appears that's what has confused the bot. I'll fix the bot's database and that should clear it up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This is also the case with Desert hare, you may have to clear any database entries for that article as well. -- Reconrabbit 13:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: see User talk:Reconrabbit#Your nomination of Desert hare is under review -- Reconrabbit 13:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Reconrabbit: Did you see I have completed my review (Talk:Desert hare/GA1)… Very little to do and we'll get it wrapped up. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely forgot... mainly because when I was cleaning up my talk page the link from ChristieBot was broken and I didn't make the connection. -- Reconrabbit 19:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response -- I've cleaned this up in the database. It was caused by the temporary existence of a nomination with page=2 that was then removed -- the bot saw the nomination and then when it disappeared assumed that was a fail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)