Talk:Yarkand hare/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Started reviews. This will take me a week to get through.

Preliminaly, please see the note on article talk page. Needs a copy edit for style. Clear up the redundancies. Clarify the status, if necessary. Specify the number and location of separate isolated populations. I'll be back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen Thanks a bunch for picking it up for a review! I have removed the repetition. Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Much better.

I think the proper "iucn" citation is:

Smith, A.T. & Johnston, C.H. 2016. Lepus yarkandensis. (errata version published in 2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T11796A115103994. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T11796A45178274.en. Downloaded on 23 September 2017.

Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen Done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Put in SFN for books.

This article really needs a picture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen Sure does! Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any image in commons. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked up the original description[1] to see if there was an old drawing we could use, but appears there was none. Still might good to cite the paper in this article, and maybe there is some useful info. It is often a good idea to look up the original descriptions for more info, especially if little else is known about an animal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk Definitely yes! Added from it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph (which I added) needs to be properly linked and tweaked. If it is misplaced or duplicative, plese correct."The species Is easily distinguishable from other Chinese hares, having longer ears than the South Chinese Hare. Like the Wooly hare and the South Chinese hare, an examination of the skull shows the groove on the front face of the upper incisors is filled with cement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk and Adityavagarwal Please take a look at the areas noted above. Additionally, I've directly made 50+ changes to the article. Improved and added references, particularly. Added some text. It would be appreciated if you would double check my work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to view that reference. I have linked the Woolly hare, but I do not think there is any South Chinese hare (Chinese hare?) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen Your changes look great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk and Adityavagarwal Am about to complete review. FunkMonk's 2nd opinion would help. I wish we could find a picture, even though it is not an absolute GA requirement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen Your changes look cool! That was some professional ref formatting. Yeah, unfortunately, I searched for an image again, but did not find any. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

At a glance it looks good, but since it is a very short article, I'd incorporate the footnotes into the main text. Especially since the intro says "However, Chinese geneticists have stated the species is "endangered.", yet I could find no reference to this in the main article. Turns out it was buried in the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk  Done Thank you for the criticism/suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yarkand hare on FLICKR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the licence? FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe if we contact the creator we could get a waiver? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the link to the Flickr page (not directly to the jpg)? If it isn't free, then yes, the author could be asked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That was marked as a Yarkand hare. But I think it is the same image this this which says it is a Tibetan Wooly hare. Sigh. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yarkand hare. But "all rights reserved." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they are the same image. On the yarkand hare flickr image, I am not sure if we can use it directly (due to the copyright thingy, but no clue if there are any other policies that allow its use). Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep turning over rocks. Yarkand hare images at Dogpile 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All concerns have been addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   I think the article is now well-sourced. References are well-formatted.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources are now reliable for the information for which they are used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear. There is some overlap in the block quotations, which I believe is fair use and which is duly sourced.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   This is a relatively short article. It contains most of the pertinent information available in the sources. The Yarkand hare is an obscure creature from a relatively remote and inaccessible place. Most of the good research has been done by Chinese naturalists/scientists, who are in the best position to collect data.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Only minor issue is the question off its exact conservation status, i.e., "threatened" or "endangered." The diversity of opinions and reasons for it is clearly explained and reliably referenced.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image licenses N/A.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There are no images. This is not a 'deal breaker' as images are preferred, but not required. So far as I can tell, there are no free available images, so that it is not possible (the rule says, "if possible") to have one. I did add an external link to an image on Flickr (copyrighted, I think) that at least gets our readers to a picture. Nickolaev, Alexey (June 20, 2017). "Yarkand hare" (JPEG) (Photograph) – via Flickr.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All concerns addressed, passing shortly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen Thanks a ton for you awesome review! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)