Talk:Burmese hare

GA review

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'll have closer a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• At first glance, the infobox image shows a juvenile, which is not ideal, that could be used in the section about reproduction instead (and noted in the caption). On the other hand, this photo of an individual in water seems interesting, but is unused.
  • Moved the current infobox photo to later on and added that one in. -RR

Cool, not seeing the change, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I managed to revert myself in that instance. I haven't described it as juvenile because I'm not quite sure that's the case. -- Reconrabbit 20:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• "The subspecies Lepus peguensis siamensis is a synonym of the nominate subspecies L. p. peguensis,[6] but since 2016 has been under consideration to be separated out as a unique species." then more cautious language than "is a synonym" should be used, such as "has generally been considered a synonym" or similar.

  I went with "has been called". -RR

• "European hare (Lepus europaeus), Abyssinian hare (Lepus habessinicus), and Granada hare (Lepus granatensis)" No need to spell out Leupus after first full mention in the article body.
  • Done this. -RR

• "have been described as clinal and potentially "arbitrary and unreasonable".[1]" Direct quotes should have in-text author attribution.

  Attributed to the authors of the species assessment, though the method of naming the authors could be less awkward. It's not mentioned as a direct quote from Schai-Braun and Hacklander, though it might as well be, but I named Johnston and Smith anyway. -RR

• What distinguishes the subspecies? If the following text covers it, it should be made more explicit: "In Myanmar, the hare's feet are white, while they are more reddish- or yellowish-brown in specimens from Thailand."

  It's not clear. The source of that text, Chapman and Flux 1990, doesn't attribute color to any subspecies: "The three subspecies may be conspecific with L. peguensis". I was able to provide a description for Vassali from Oldfield Thomas though.

  Reviewing the other literature, there's no obvious way to distinguish the subspecies, according to Schai-Braun and Hackländer 2018, but the decision to make them conspecific hasn't been made by anyone yet. -RR

• What does the name "vassali" mean?

  After some digging: Joseph Vassal. -RR

• Redirect subspecies names and synonyms here.
  • Done for all but L. p. peguensis, I see no use for that one nor any nominate subspecies redirect. -RR

Any taxon or common name covered here should be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• "resembles the Indian hare (L. nigricollis)" doesn't need binomial and link again here.
  • I like to link "no more than once per major section", but I see the case for removing the binomial. -RR

• Give year and author of the shown cladogram, it has no context now.

  Done, though maybe another title could be used. -RR

• How do juveniles differ from adults visually?
  • Besides being precocial, there is nearly nothing described about them in literature to differentiate them from adults. -RR

• "and is herbivorous" that seems like it goes without saying, would be more helpful to list its food items, as you do in the article body.
  • Not necessarily. I have added the generic food types it consumes. -RR

• Predators and parasites? Nothing more to say about this species?

  I was able to find one paper that describes the diet of jungle cats, which includes this species. Parasites I have found nothing so far. -- Reconrabbit 20:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Changes look good, source check next. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Citation 11 checks out, but it seems an odd source, the website of a zoo which sites actual published works, which should ideally be cited instead. But that's probably less of a problem at GAN than at FAC.
  • I prefer to use this citation across a variety of articles because it is easily accessible. I could include the exact same text about the dental formula in all lagomorph articles (except P. furnessi) and cite Macdonald 2001 instead, but the third volume where that information is contained isn't as easily accessed. -RR

• Citation 10 states more studies of this species are urgently needed and little is known about its behaviour, which I think warrants mention here, as it also explains the scarcity of information.
  • I'm not sure how pertinent this information is. That reference work was written in 1990, and "urgently needed" has changed to just "recommended" in 2018 (Schai-Braun and Hacklander). -RR

• Same source mentions small, isolated populations being a threat, which isn't mentioned here.
  • I'll add "lives in populations isolated from each other by forests", which is from 2018, though it doesn't state that these populations are threatened. -RR

• Citation 9 has the interesting title "The Burmese hare as a palaeoecological indicator", which, apart from mentioning fossils, this article doesn't seem to discuss the implications of.
  • I added some of the writers' conclusions though it might be a bit too in the weeds. Do you think it's good? -- Reconrabbit 17:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's good for context, especially if there is so little else to write about the species, then even one paper is a significant percentage of the literature. Changes look good, so I'll promote now. FunkMonk (talk)