# Talk:Hispid hare

Is it not possible to find a photograph to use for this animal instead of an illustration published in the 1800's? 108.173.132.6 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. It's a terrible image for a lead image. It's a poor quality illustration to begin with, with the animal and the background blending together too much, and it's just plain old, being 177 years old. Not only does photography exist, but it's based on poor understanding of physiology of the animal. While his pods do have relatively small ears, they're not that small, which look more like pika ears. In fact, considering all things, the illustrator was likely confusing the two. I'm getting rid of it immediately. It is better to have no lead image than one full of errors from nearly two centuries ago. oknazevad (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Luckily there was a 2017 paper published with a photo that is under a CC BY license. -- Reconrabbit 20:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Aryal & Yadav, 2010 is published by a predatory journal, but it looks to me that the results are fairly uncontroversial so I'm including it as a reference. -- Reconrabbit 20:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since it was removed, I'll refrain from describing the rabbit's "first sighting" in this park. -- Reconrabbit 16:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@UtherSRG It makes sense to use the heading "description" as a less technical term for the physical appearance/characters of a species. In the past I've been told that this is incorrect and should be "Characteristics" (Tiger, Talk:Bat-eared fox#Suggestions for improvement). Thus I've been changing a lot of section headings to match. I've also seen "Appearance" (Alpine ibex). Am I missing something obvious or just following a trend that doesn't carry over to every species article? -- Reconrabbit 14:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 is wrong. The standard is "Description" and has been for nearly forever. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)