# Talk:Riverine rabbit

Julia,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the new updates to this article. I think there are a few things that would make it even better. If at all possible, a picture added to the article would help the reader imagine what this particular rabbit looks like. Also, the reader could have benefitted from knowing the rabbit's life span or time taken to mature. Just a few suggestions, it was overall very well put together.  
-Lauren LeidenLwleiden (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,
As part of an assignment for our writing class, our team undertook a large scale edit/expansion of this article. We added 14 sources. We expanded the lead and these sections: identification, lead, behavior, and reproduction. We created these sections: taxonomy, predators and behaviors, diet, reproduction, relationship with humans, endangerment, and conservation. We also cleaned up the talk page. 
Thank you
Colinjegan (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)colinjegan

To any Wikipedia editors concerned with this article,
In the reference section, there are 2 entries, 7 and 19, that seem to have faulty links, because of the red characters in the reference section. However, if one finds the links connected to the in text citations for these two numbers, they function just fine. So I am not really sure how to fix this, because the links in reality work and take one to a valid website, if one finds where they are referenced in the article.
In addition, the new information in this article has been used to contribute to the fauna section on the Karoo desert wikipedia page, so editors do not need to worry about that.
Thank you,
Colinjegan (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)colinjegan

I added a picture to this article of the european rabbit, which is among the closest genetic relatives to this riverine rabbit (this fact is cited in the article). This is because there are no images of the rabbit itself in the public domain according to my research. This seems to aid the article overall, and is in no way misleading because it is clearly notes that this is the European rabbit, not the riverine one that is the subject of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinjegan (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) 

An absolutely terrible idea. Which was fortunately reverted, and subsequently a proper image was added. Seriously, never use the incorrect species in a taxonomy infobox. Ever. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Excepting the lead section, there is only one sentence that does not cite a source. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Some references used in this article, specifically Collins, 2001, Awaad, 2007, and Biodiversity Explorer may seem a bit dated/less professional, though they do appear to be written and reviewed by experts or at least take information from peer-reviewed sources. They remain in the article mainly because they're more accessible than many of the book and academic sources that don't have freely accessible previews. If these are not appropriate to any reviewer or reader I will do my best to supplement with better contemporary encyclopedic works. Reconrabbit 15:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)