Talk:Red rock hare

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red rock hare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a nicely-written, well-illustrated, and fully-cited article on a lagomorph genus. It plainly covers most of "the main points" so I shall have only a few comments to make.

  Thank you, I was unsure how a "good" article on a genus of mammal should be written as I am not aware of many. Oryzomys is one of my few reference points.

• The excellent map, the 'Genetics', and the existence of 4 species in the genus, imply that there must be a phylogenetic tree showing the origins and relatedness of the species. It would be helpful at least to have a short 'Phylogeny' section describing the relationships of the extant and fossil species to each other, and ideally ('External phylogeny') to other Leporids.

  I created a cladogram based on Matthee et al., 2004 but placing extinct species in this is difficult because they are either too new (humpatensis) or disused (intermedius). It is currently placed in Taxonomy but could be moved to Genetics.

  Doesn't fit in either, though your 'Genetics' section is already half 'Phylogeny' actually. Phylogeny is the usual title; it's part of 'Evolution' which is the more general heading, and has the advantage of including 'Fossil history', so I suggest you call it that and incorporate the fossil material there. The cladogram would fit more easily if you have it left-aligned (without text beside it).

  I've made an attempt to write more on the evolutionary history and relationships between the leporids. There is no clear information on the systematic relationships of any extinct Pronolagus and the extant ones, though.

• J. E. Gray and Charles Major's works both need dates indicated in the main text, not only in the citations.

  Done.

• I've done a very small amount of copy-editing.

• The Jameson's image should have the branding removed.

  Done. I am always cautious about removing watermarks, and especially when messing with files that have VRT tickets, but have done so here. Name is still attached to the file.

• The Saint-Hilaire image should I believe be marked {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} to indicate that the scan was not by the uploading editor.

  Done.

• All the images are on Commons and are plausibly licensed.

• The sources used are of suitable quality for a taxon article, and appear all to be directly relevant for this article.

• Spot-checks: [3], [15], [28] ok.

• The article covers its ground briefly but clearly. The principal omission is anything on the genus's phylogeny. This would ideally be with a small phylogenetic tree (using {{clade}}, but at least requires a source and brief discussion.

  Phylogenetic tree is created (with {{cladogram}}) but has no significant discussion yet. Other than the divide between rupestris and saundersiae, what can be said?

  If the fossil species can be included, it indicates the relationships with extinct species; it can also show relatedness to other leporids (which is the sister group, for instance).

Well the article is certainly more coherent, and more conventionally structured. I believe it covers "the main points", so passing it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]