# Talk:Omilteme cottontail

This review is transcluded from Talk:Omilteme cottontail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this. Comments in a few days. Esculenta (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up. Replying here as a reminder - no rush though, since I'm working on another cottontail and a GAR right now... Reconrabbit 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments:

"habitat desctruction"
Oops. Fixed.
"The anatomy of Sylvilagus insonus has been described with particular focus towards the skull." suggest "… on the skull."
Focus is now on the skull.
"These characteristics are also useful in differentiating the species from the Mexican cottontail (S. cunicularius), with whom it shares its habitat." -> "with which"
Changed
"The Omilteme cottontail was first described from two specimens by Edward William Nelson in 1904" missing something like "collected by" or "examined by"
I split this into two sentences, clarifying that he was working alongside Edward Alphonso Goldman to collect the specimens relevant to the description.
link Guerrero again (after lead); subspecies; type locality; Sylvilagus
Links added
should probably abbreviate all "millimetres" for consistency (and also avoid the British-English spelling)
I assume this is in American English (being a North American species), so "grey" should be "gray", and there's a "kilometres" later
Corrected the greys and colours, added sp=us, order=flip, and abbr=on to convert templates so US units come first.
don't know if brow ridge is equivalent to supraorbital ridge, but there might be a worthwhile link there; same deal with "braincase" and neurocranium (the Wiki article says its a term for human anatomy, but I think it also applies to non-human mammals)
a whack of undefined jargon is introduced in the "Differences from other members of the genus Sylvilagus" subsection (consider using just "Similar species" as a more succinct subheader, and one that's standard in other ToL articles). To wit:
"Sylvilagus insonus differs from S. brasiliensis (forest rabbit) and S. dicei (Dice's cottontail) in that it has a larger skull, wider zygomatic bone, deeper rostrum, wider carotid foramina and dorsal extensions of the premaxillaries that extend posterior to the nasal instead. S. insonus also has a narrower basioccipital and narrower post-dental process." suggest something more like "Sylvilagus insonus differs from S. brasiliensis (forest rabbit) and S. dicei (Dice's cottontail) by having a larger skull, wider cheekbones (zygomatic bones), and a deeper snout (rostrum). It also has wider openings for blood vessels (carotid foramina) at the base of the skull, and the bones at the front of its upper jaw (premaxillaries) extend farther back, past the nasal bones. Additionally, the bone at the base of its skull (basioccipital) and the bone behind its teeth (post-dental process) are narrower."

"In external appearance, The Omilteme cottontail "
Changed. I still have work to do in this section (which I didn't really know what to do with, honestly - it was there before I started work, and I could confirm it from the sources used, but couldn't simplify the language easily).
link undergrowth, burrow, poaching, habitat destruction, deforestation, natural history
Linked
the taxonomy section doesn't mention that the taxon was transferred to Sylvilagus by Nelson in 1909; a link to the genus transferring publication would be useful (available here, p. 264). Might also be worth mentioning that the type was collected by Nelsen and Edward Alphonso Goldman in 1903 (found in this source)
The latter fact is included in the 1904 work by Nelson; I'll add from this article. I seem to always have trouble finding the works where leporids get transferred from Lepus to other genera.
Spotchecks:
checked every statement attributed to the most used source, "Cervantes97"; all paraphrasing was acceptable and all statements were backed up by the source.
Images:
Only one image (range map), which has a proper license and attributes its sources.
Sources
All sources are scholarly; formatting and layout is fine. A publication date for ref 17 could be added.
Date corrected.
the lead currently seems a little sparse; consider adding a few details to ensure it summarises the article's contents per WP:LEAD. For example, it's interesting that it was believed possibly extinct due to no confirmed sightings between early 1900s and late 1990s, and was rediscovered with confirmed sightings starting from 1998.
not GA, but it's a good idea to make redirects for any taxonomic synonyms
Working on it.
Article is pretty close to GA already, so I'll put this review on hold so the nominator can address the above comments/suggestions. Esculenta (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've answered most of the notes above but still have work to do. Descriptions of skeletal characteristics give me trouble as someone not especially familiar with anatomy (which is why I've stalled out on Pronolagus humpatensis. Reconrabbit 14:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I've added the notes from Nelson 1909 (while it is the first placement of the species in Sylvilagus, he doesn't particularly describe why it was placed there - Lyon doesn't mention Insonus at all either, but it's clear his work was influential on Nelson) and tried to make the similar species more readable. Also, added brow ridge and neurocranium links - those bones eluded me... should be all. Reconrabbit 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok, looks good to me; I think all GA criteria are met, so will promote this now. Esculenta (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)