Talk:Mountain cottontail/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Mountain cottontail/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain cottontail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Reconrabbit}} 19:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 03:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|}}
6. ::
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
9. :: Covers all the standard sections for a species article, I'm not left with any lingering questions
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. :: User:Reconrabbit clearly has a COI with Leporidae, unacceptable behavior by such a seasoned editor
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. :: Most recent nontrivial edit by someone other than the nom is in 2023.
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
18. :: Would be cool to get an image that isn't just "adult mountain cottontail stares startled at the camera", but I assume they are not available. Cute critters!
19. ::: A search on iNaturalist yielded some decent photos that could be used. Listed here: Eating a plant, a juvenile example, grooming and showing off its huge hindfoot, looking rather placid in the snow, and turned around showing the distinctive orange parts. -- Reconrabbit 17:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
20. :::: Those are great! Rusalkii (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
21. Overall:
22. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|}}
23. ::

I'll be making minor changes as I go, feel free to change back if you disagree. Anything I mark as "nit" won't affect my pass/fail.

: {{Ping|Rusalkii}} I thought I had addressed every non-nit comment 2 weeks ago but apparently not - I then got distracted with another review, and other work. Ready for what-ever you have next to note. -- Reconrabbit 20:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Reconrabbit Sorry, ended up going on a half-wikibreak. I think everything basically looks good but I'll try to do a more careful pass later this weekend. Rusalkii (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There were a couple non-insignificant things I didn't have fixed before that last comment. No trouble. I will not be going anywhere -- Reconrabbit 01:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• [nit] Infobox image uses "Sylvilagus nuttallii at the Hanford Site, Washington" - should this use the common name?
• : The preferred use of captions seems to vary between using the scientific name, describing sex, or not having one at all. Since it can't be distinguished as a male or female, this could be shortened to just "Hanford Site, Washington, United States".
• [nit] I don't love having the technical "Leporidae" in the first sentence, could this be changed to "rabbit" or similar?
• : I'm working on removing this construction from all leporid articles slowly, "species of rabbit" should be clear enough for most readers.
• [nit] it took me a second to realize the "International Union for Conservation of Nature", was the IUCN, I'm so used to just seeing the abbreviation; I think it should be included
• : Added
• [nit] "the later naturalist" strikes me as fairly awkwardly phrased, though I'm not sure how you would rephrase it so perhaps this is in fact the best option
• : The history of the description might be removed from the introductory paragraphs entirely since it's not particularly informative of the rabbit's characteristics.
• "it was noted as bearing resemblance to the American pika" by whom?
• : by Bachman - added.
• [nit] "the illustrations were provided by painter and scientific illustrator Maria Martin, Bachman's sister-in-law" this strikes me as a weird fit for the taxonomy section, though I don't know where else you'd put it really
• : This is a pretty extraneous detail - I just included it because it was interesting. Could delete.
• [nit] "first placed in the genus Sylvilagus by Marcus Ward Lyon Jr in 1904" this makes me wonder on what grounds, besides "skeletal characteristics"
• : Lyon doesn't state upon which criteria the individual species are placed into different genera and subgenera, but I could try and extrapolate from the subgenus Sylvilagus description.
• [nit] is there a reason to use "35,000 years before present" instead of just "years ago"?
• : Not particularly
• are the subspecies distinguished by anything other than range? I assume that given someone attempted to separate them based on dental characteristics, at least by those? I think it is worth making this more explicit even if you don't go into the weeds there, which I know can get very boring and technical very fast.
• : I can't find what other criteria there are that separate them. The source used here says "Based solely on dental morphology, it has been suggested that the species complex was in fact three distinct species" and does not elaborate further.

• [nit] I think I usually see these sections titled "Description"?
• : When I was working on Bat-eared fox, I was advised to use the section heading Characteristics over Description by User:SilverTiger12, who has been writing articles on organisms much longer than I have, so I keep with that preference.
• "The tail, dark on top and white underneath, is large" - large for rabbits, I assume? probably worth clarifying
• : I've omitted the qualifier "large" since measurements are already there. Size is only helpful where it's being compared.
• "distinct pale brown nape on the back of the head" either "nape" is being used as a technical term here and should be defined/wikilinked, or this is saying "it has a brown back of the head on the back of the head"
• : Nape is no longer used - more trouble than it's worth to define it.
• I have done some shuffling of the sentence around in the second half of this section. In my opinion this flows better and keeps related information together (description in one paragraph, difference from related species in the next), but let me know if you disagree.

• "intermountain area of North America" I assume this refers to the area between the Rockies and the Appalachians but this took a bit of thinking, and will probably not be obvious at all if you aren't familiar with NA geography
• : "It appears from the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, just north of the United States-Canada border, to the northern parts of Arizona and New Mexico" are the important signals. The first sentence was chopped down.

: * Okay, a few sentences in and I think actually you mean the Rockies and the Sierras? Needs clarifying

• [nit] "It was once found as far south as Texas" when?
• : The time frame is unclear, I searched and didn't find a good answer.
• [nit] is the list of elevations by state necessary? if
• : This could be placed in a footnote.

• "when not feeding, courting, or mating" and raising children, I assume?
• : Removed that part of the introducing sentence. Details on when it does interact with other members of the species are found later on.
• [nit] "The mountain cottontail is also known to climb juniper trees to feed or drink water" drink water... in the trees? is it caught in the leaves, can this be clarified? cool if so
• : It does not in fact drink water in trees. I don't know where I got that from.
• [nit] "They are not territorial; males typically have a larger home range than females" semicolon here feels like it implies a relationship between these facts but if there is one I cannot derive it
• : Semicolon now a period
• [nit] You usually use "it", but there are two "they"s in this section. "They are not territorial..." and "...they hop when chased". To be entirely honest I have no idea when which usage is correct, my species articles are a mess in this regard, so just flagging this for you here
• [nit] "when faced with a lack of vegetation for shelter" this implies that they typically use vegetation for cover but I think it could do with being stated more explicitly in the text and not just the image caption
• : This is (now?) preceded with a description of what the rabbit does when vegetation is plentiful.
• [nit] "Its fur coat does not change color to suit the changing seasons, and thus it seeks out areas with grassy cover for shelter" should this be for "camouflage", since you attribute it to the color of the coat?
• : Worked out camouflage descriptions, though it isn't explicitly referred to as such in sources.
• "The only behavior to reduce predation is..." your caption implies that there is at least one more activity, seeking cover
• : "Only behavior" removed. There are a couple methods - running away, and hiding.
• "wheatgrasses" points to a disambiguation link, is that correct?
• : Supposed to be Agropyron, corrected.
• "The diet of the mountain cottontail is primarily made up of sagebrush" and "It is made up in large part of grasses such as..." seem to contradict. I assume you mean by the second that, when it eats more grass in the spring and summer, those grasses are [the following]?
• : Now these grasses are contextualized with the seasons with which they are relevant.
• [nit] "performs cecotrophy" - can this be briefly glossed, as a technical term most readers would be unfamiliar with?
• : Done here
• "...in similar granivorous species" I don't see anything here stating that it is seed-eating?
• : I don't know why the comparison is drawn specifically to granivores, but the 2018 work states "in contrast to many more-sensitive granivore species..."
• "The nest of S. nuttallii is reported to be..." by whom? or rephrase
• : By Robert T. Orr, apparently. My 2018 and 2016 encyclopediae don't give any details on the shape or characteristics of the nest.
• [nit] "altricial" should probably be glossed
• : Done

• [nit] I'd merge these two sections, they're related and relatively short
• : Merged as "status and conservation" - some consider "threats and conservation" to be a self-contradicting title, though I disagree
• [nit] "other leporids" I'd just use "rabbits and hares"
• : very true!
• [nit] as for the lead, can the IUCN abbreviation be included?
• : I try not to include abbreviations if I don't use them again in the text, but in this case it seems warranted.
• [nit] "considered as "presumed extirpated"" - I'd rephrase as "presumed locally extinct" to avoid the unfamiliar term unless there's a shade of meaning you're trying to preserve here that I'm missing
• : Changed

... sorry for the giant list, this was in fact quite well written, I just got into the copyediting flow. Feel free to ignore everything marked [nit] if you were not looking for this, I think that gets it down to a much more manageable amount. Source check incoming Rusalkii (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bachman:

:* Where in the source does it say the illustrations were by Martin?

:*: The BHL source information page states that Maria Martin made the plate illustrations, but this isn't stated in the text itself.

• Lagomorphs: Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares of the World (#10):

:* "which have been found only in the caves of Utah and Texas, date back to only 35,000 years before present" this is quite close paraphrasing of the source. Also, it does not say "only" (I know that can reasonably be implied here but that's a little too much a stretch for me to be comfortable with)

:*: Reworded

:* I don't see "more arid regions" in the source

:*: could have been my own assumptions - removed more arid specifically

:* I don't see "NatureServe conservation status"

:*: Vulnerable, Apparently Secure, and Secure are all NatureServe statuses. Though it doesn't state it explicitly as such, it uses the NatureServe abbreviations (S3, S4, S5, SX).

• Chapman (#12):

:* I see "grangeri Lyon are synonyms" but not 1904.

:*: Right above "Context and content": "Sylvilagus (Sylvilagus) nuttallii Lyon, 1904:336. First use of name combination."

:::: - er, yes, I was looking for the subspecies but of course this is the nominate. My bad.

:::::If it helps this is stated explicitly on the [https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1001138/ Mammal Diversity Database] which is cited on the list of synonyms. grangeri is on Lyon's massive list of leporid taxa [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8810388 here].

:* I think you may have mixed up the type localities of grangeri and pinetis?

:*: Looks like I did. My mistake since I have the subspecies listed in alphabetical order and Chapman lists them by date.

:* I do not see "medium to small-sized rabbit" in the source, or any size comparison beyond that it is large for the genus

:*: My mistake, that is present in Beever & French, 2018: "The mountain cottontail is a small to medium-sized Sylvilagus".

:* Where did you get the lower end of the length range (29cm?). The lowest number I see is 345 mm, but these numbers are very dense and I may be missing something.

:*: This also is derived from Beever & French, 2018: "Head and body 290—390 mm"

::* 29cm can be found in Lagomorphs: Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares of the World

:* "The nest of S. nuttallii is reported to be a cuplike cavity lined with fur and dried grass. The top of the nest is covered with fur, grass, and small sticks, probably placed there by the female. The average fetal sex ratio in Oregon was 1 male to 1.05 females; the adult sex ratio was 1 male to 1.18 females" matches the source exactly and needs to be rewritten or quoted and attributed.

:*: Reworded

• Frey (#20):

:* I don't see the comparison of the sizes of the brownish patch on the nape here.

:*: In my journey to get the article where it is now I double-checked the "long hops and short leaps" fact, but not the "brown patch size" fact. Removed as I don't see it elsewhere.

• Kudryavtseva (#26) and Pathology case of the month - Mountain Cottontail (#27): {{checkmark}}

[more to come]