# Talk:Ethiopian hare

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ethiopian hare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ethiopian hare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 08:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
"and are finely grizzled with black" - Should this read "and is finely ..."
Woops, fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd shorten the link 'International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List for Endangered Species' somehow. Maybe just the same way we did at Glover's pika though I'm open to other suggestions.
Woops, fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The lead is a bit thin. I'd at least add when and who it was first described by.
Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Derek Yalden and colleagues wrote ..." I'd consider adding what year they wrote this.
Fixed by Ummimak. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Francis Petter". I like how this is formatted. That being said, I've never seen something like this on Wikipedia before. Is there a specific rule about this you can point me to?
No idea, I din't add it. :P Removed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: I don't think he implied this needed to be removed. Umimmak (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Umimmak: I have now replaced it. I am not sure if that is required, but does not hurt to have it. Actually, I did not notice your comments before my initial fixes. Was still typing it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"namely 2n=48" - not knowing much about chromosomes, this doesn't mean much to me. I've been looking through other featured articles on wildlife (including Black stork haha) and I'm not seeing any mention of chromosomes. I'm not saying you need to get rid of this, I'm more just curious about why you've chosen to include it.
Actually, you are right. Removed! Lol, now that you mentioned the black stork, I have not only been rewarded the Triple Crown by you, but also the Awesome Wikipedian by Gerda Arendt. Two surprises in one day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Upperparts" just redirects to Anatomical terms of location, and that page doesn't mention that term at all.
Unlinked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"is a predator of the Ethiopian hare and, in one its feces analysis, the hairs of the Ethiopian hare were found" - mentioning the hair in feces seems a bit redundant. I mean, since you mention that it is a predator of the hare already one would be extremely surprised if traces of the hare were not found in the feces.
Yeah, fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"It is abundant in the Lake Tana sub-basin in areas with sufficient coverage" - I'd merge this with the paragraph above.
Done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable? 
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage? 
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
I assumed you've looked for a free image?
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Fantastic work overall. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Some initial responses to some of your points, I don't know if @Adityavagarwal: has additional thoughts, but:
I'd consider adding what year they wrote this. My thought process was the date they said this doesn't really matter too much; it's not like its history became subsequently less complicated so saying when they characterized its taxonomic history didn't seem germane enough to warrant a year in the body, but I can go explicitly date the quotation.
I've never seen something like this on Wikipedia before. Is there a specific rule about this you can point me to? It used Template:ill, which I quite like. And once the wikipedia article is written and the red link turns blue, the parenthetical link to the other language wikipedia automatically disappears, which is convenient. You can see a suggestion for its usage in WP:ILL#Purpose.
I'm more just curious about why you've chosen to include it. I was following Mammals of Africa, which included every species's chromosome count in the intro taxonomy summary paragraph. I suppose that since, to my knowledge, its karyotype hasn't been published and it's based on knowledge of other species it can be removed, but that's why I included it. If there were actual genetic studies and if perhaps Lepus species had more variability, it having a different number from other L. species would be indicative of taxonomic separation. But point taken that the shorthand should be spelled out, namely explicitly saying its diploid cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 48.
I assumed you've looked for a free image? I tried. :( Original description didn't have any figures, nor did any other public domain sources. Didn't see any photos of museum specimens with the right license. Didn't see any photos with the right license on Flickr or iNaturalist. Alas. I had added an image of its tick just so something would be illustrated, but it would be ideal if there were free images of the hare itself, I agree.
Thanks! I and Adityavagarwal will be sure to address your points soon. Umimmak (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Very happy with your improvements and the explanations. Now that I'm aware that template exists I'm going to start using it myself. Passing. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your awesome reviews, Freikorp! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead section does not mention the possible sightings in Sudan and Kenya, only that it is endemic in Ethiopia. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 09:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)