# Talk:Bunyoro rabbit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bunyoro rabbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 22:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I would be interested in reviewing this.

Thank you. I want to note that I reached out to the author of this photo for use in the article, as they have released images in the past (see File:Dologale Dybowskii - Chinko Project Area - 20120516.jpg), but haven't heard anything yet. Reconrabbit 23:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
That would be a nice addition. With or without the picture, the article should be close. Here are some scattered comments I have for now (I'll spot check the sources later):
It is monotypic within the genus Poelagus. The genus seems to be the thing that is monotypic here, not the species. In any case, for general conciseness and keeping in consistency with similar articles, it might be better to remove this sentence altogether and tack something like "and the only member of the genus Poelagus" to the preceding sentence.
One of the few things I didn't touch from the original way the article was phrased. That does seem more natural; changed it.
I don't see any sources that appear to establish notability for Jane St. Leger (after checking Google, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library), in which case a redlink isn't needed.
That's possible. It's more likely she's Wikispecies notable than Wikipedia notable; she's hard to look up because of the prominence of other St. Legers regardless.
where Isoberlinia spp. trees grow This feels a little jargony; why not just say "trees of the genus Isoberlinia"?
I changed this using a source I have on hand to rewrite the rest of the habitat notes in that short paragraph.
On a similar note to the above comment, I notice that scientific names are often given immediately following common names for various species and genera. I would recommend this for the related rabbit genera (mainly due to the taxonomy section), but not for distantly related animals like rock hyraxes.
I'm never sure what degree of scientific names are useful to provide. In another article I worked on Bat-eared fox scientific name was given for the subject's namesake, but not the animal's predators.
I rarely see scientific names in articles unless they belong to the subject or a close relative. (In addition to common names, that is; some species are not widely known by a common name at all.) I doubt leaving them in here would be harmful, but I always tend to err on the side of conciseness and consistency if there isn't a strong reason to adopt a nonstandard style.
The average reader might not be familiar with the term "form" as used here; perhaps provide a definition in parentheses.
A form is a shallow depression/divot in the ground, as one of the notes on the disambiguation pages states. Is that good enough?
On that note, I see several rather technical terms that are linked but not defined. I forget the exact guideline, but I know there's one somewhere stating that we should make technical terms understandable without requiring readers to follow such links (not that the links themselves are bad, of course).
I can see that being desirable, and in some cases it may make sense to provide definitions or reword (zygomatic bone to cheekbone, define altricial right after the link) but some (like vicariance, ultraconserved element, phylogenetic, gestation) would lead to inconvenient long parentheticals if attempts to define are made.
I will concede that there is a limit to how much we can simplify things while still being professional — there's a reason we have separate Introduction to quantum mechanics and Introduction to genetics articles.
Poelagus marjorita has no recognized subspecies. Two synonyms of the species exist, both of which were proposed subspecies with minor differences in fur color and skull morphology I don't fully understand this. They were proposed as subspecies, then raised to species status, then synonymized? That seems to be what's being described here.
Reworded that part. Trying to make clear that these were proposed subspecies, but they are not currently recognized and are treated as synonyms.
The part that's confusing me is that the listed synonyms are binomial rather than trinomial.
I don't really know why they're binomial. They appear as trinomial in the original publications and the work by Happold in Mammalian Biology, but binomial in the IUCN. I'm moving it back to what Happold uses, since there's no other authority I have a hold of right now that even mentions the subspecies.
Consistency between articles is not strictly a requirement, but it's not bad either. The rabbit is here described as a "species of mammal" in the first sentence while most other rabbits like the European rabbit are described specifically as "species of rabbit".
I'm trying to make these consistent. By using "species of mammal in the family Leporidae", these are already consistent with the red rock hares that were GAs prior to 2024. I could ask at a broader noticeboard to see which is preferred ("species of rabbit in family Leporidae" for rabbits, "species of hare"... for the others).
Incidentally, I do actually somewhat prefer "species of mammal" as it seems rather redundant to say that "[whatever] rabbit is a species of rabbit".
I brought it up at the WP:MAMMAL talk page and pretty much the same conclusions were drawn. "Species of mammal" appropriate for rabbits called rabbit, but "species of rabbit" appropriate for, say,
The article seems to be in American English, but units use UK spelling. Use the sp=us parameter on the convert templates to fix this. There's also "behaviour" in one heading.
This article uses Oxford English.
"Color" (three times) was stood out to me as an Americanism... not an Oxford spelling as far as I'm aware. "Savanna" is another spelling usually associated with the US.
Then the script I was using missed those. I run into trouble with these because the original authors of these articles are usually writing in non-American English, but I learned everything in American English. I'll comb through it again
And, reading through again, I found "favoured".
Spot check results:

Four years earlier, it was misidentified by Geoffrey Douglas Hale Carpenter, who discovered a colony of the species and assumed them to be the feral descendants of European rabbits introduced to the region by Emin Pasha.  Verified
In regions where P. marjorita is present alongside other leporids, such as the African savanna hare (Lepus victoriae) and the Cape hare (Lepus capensis), the rabbit can be distinguished by the length of its ears, which are always shorter than the hind feet. Mostly  Verified, but — and this might be pedantic of me — the source doesn't say "always".
Even if the key doesn't state always directly, I can add a source from Handbook of the Mammals of the World that will confirm that it would be pretty hard to find a case where the rabbit's ears are longer than that of a hare. There's a 20 millimeter difference at each of the extremes.
Yeah, based on the picture, it seems like would be quite abnormal for the ears to extend that far. I won't push this one.
However, later reviews of the known records and specimens determined that the species has a disjunct distribution, with four isolated populations that occur in Uganda, South Sudan, northeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and eastern Central African Republic. I'm not sure about the definitive wording here; the source says "further careful investigation and additional specimens may reveal that the species occurs in the intervening country between these clusters and may be slightly more widespread than the present records suggest."
That work is from 2006, and none of the works I've read since then have found any occurrences of the rabbit in the intervening country. I'd say it's not useful to include what further studies may elucidate about the habitat when there haven't been any such studies proving that yet.
Its favoured habitat is damp savanna, often with rocky outcrops. It also occurs in woodland where Isoberlinia spp. trees grow, sometimes in forests. Mostly  Verified although the wording here doesn't quite match the source (which is somewhat confusingly worded itself). It seems to be saying the the rabbit's habitats are grasslands and woodlands around rocky outcrops and, less frequently, forests.
I'll try to figure out a better way to state this. The book I'm looking at right now says "dense vegetation in woodland savanna, stony habitats, and hills with short grasses" and "may live in forests in South Sudan", so I can state that information from a different source, but would be harder to verify for the average reader.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in its Red List of Endangered Species, lists it as a least-concern species, but notes that its population may be decreasing.  Verified
Another thing I found in my spot check was the fact that this was apparently the last genus of leproid discovered in Africa. May be worth a mention in the taxonomy section.
I don't know how useful that fact is. It doesn't come up in the encyclopedic works I use for a lot of these Glires articles, or I must have missed it.
Well, it couldn't hurt. Whatever you choose is fine.
Earwig found no copyvios, except for what appears to be content copied onto a WP mirror.
The only image (a map) is of acceptable copyright status and use.
That should complete the review, unless I notice anything else. I'll place the article on hold. — Anonymous 20:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left some more comments and replies. Anything I didn't reply to seems alright as is. — Anonymous 03:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Replied to everything outstanding (I think). Reconrabbit 16:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I see you took issue with a change I made. I don't understand exactly what your issue is, but the reason I changed the wording is because it seems to suggest that the rabbit's actual relations are affected by the study done (when, presumably, only one of the two conclusions is correct, even if we can be sure which). It's a little like saying "whether the universe is governed by Newtonian or quantum mechanics depends on the historical period" (forgive the rather dramatic and philosophical example, but I think you get the idea that quantum mechanics still existed before they were discovered). So, if you could just find a way to soften the wording and emphasize that both potential relations are based on what studies have found, rather than making sound as though both are simultaneously true, I will pass the article. — Anonymous 14:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Your change makes sense - I understand that there's discrepancy between the studies, and it seems better worded that way than how I had it originally. The reversion was made by @Elmidae who I'd like to ask here - what would be a better way to phrase this? Reconrabbit 16:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Whoops, I don't know how I didn't notice that that was a different user. Anyway, I will second the request for some sort of elaboration. — Anonymous 17:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I am personally partial to not noting the alternative study at all in the lead, since a later phylogenetic tree posited here from 2024 supports Poelagus-Pronolagus-Nesolagus closeness. Reconrabbit 17:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, should have commented here - didn't realize that a GA assessment was going on. - Hmm. By my reading, the two studies in question don't supersede each other. They are both molecular analyses that come to valid conclusions based on the particular sample of material they are using, with no clear indication that one result is better founded than the other. The earlier study seems to have used a larger pool, but then the later presumably has 18 years of improvements in techniques going for it. So it seems to me that calling this "different conclusions dependent on material chosen" is justified, and the current formulation seems to cover that nicely. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, and I won't object to further rephrasings. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
The issue is mainly with the first part of the sentence The Bunyoro rabbit is closely related to either...depending on the genetic evidence being examined. (emphasis added). The wording seems to suggest that the rabbit's literal relationships are dependent on which study a human researcher decides to perform. The article should acknowledge that different conclusions have been found, but not make it sound like both can simultaneously be correct (which they obviously cannot). — Anonymous 18:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I tried to compromise here. The 2024 article seems like a good resource, but it's very new and hasn't been cited by anything as of yet. Reconrabbit 18:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Looks good now. Really, I would've been satisfied by something as simple as changing "is" in the original sentence to "has been found to be", but this also works. I will pass the article shortly. — Anonymous 19:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Looks fine! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)