Talk:Woolly hare

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woolly hare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• No cladogram to show?

  I added a cladogram. -RR

• International Union for Conservation of Nature is WP:duplinked.

  Not more than once per major section. -RR

• Could be nice with a clear lateral view image.

  The available images are either too blurry, have bad contrast, or are facing away from the camera. Would you accept File:Lepus oiostolus 576528603.jpg? -RR

Looks good, but see point below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The species name oiostolus is reminiscent of the Ancient Greek οὖλος (oûlos), meaning 'woolly'." why just "reminiscent"? Not derived from?

  It could be derived from, but like so many 19th-century and earlier descriptions it's not clearly stated why the name is given or what it means in Hodgson's work, so I didn't want to make the assumption. -RR

• Could somehow state it was assigned to the existing genus Lepus and link it.

  Done, though it seems redundant. -RR

Not necessarily for lay readers. You also seem to use similar wording for another species later. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• I checked the newly added illustration, which looks very low res. I tried to track down the original size, and found this on Commons, where it is labelled as L. capensis. So what is correct here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  That label is incorrect, see . I have corrected it and added the higher-resolution image. Thanks for finding it. -RR

• "as distinct species in the hare genus Lepus" seems odd to specify that here for another species, should be redundant now anyway after you've added similar wording for the subject of the article.

  I've removed the "hare genus Lepus" part of that sentence. The relevant part is that these subspecies were once considered species on their own merits but were later relegated to subspecies (and in the end disregarded entirely as synonyms). -RR

• "After Hodgson's 1940 description of the woolly hare (the nominate subspecies),[2] he wrote an account of the species Lepus pallipes two years later". The start and end of the sentence seem convoluted, you could just start with "In 1943 Hodgson wrote an account" and save the extra words.

  Simplified as suggested -RR

• "The third edition of Mammal Species of the World, published in 2005" give authorities?

  Done for this and below three items (links, italics). -RR

• "A 2016 species account noted that" likewise here and for others missing.

• "Lepus oiostolus" should also be in italics in the cladogram.

• Link moulted.

• Link coniferous.

• "Golden eagles and Eurasian eagle-owls prey upon woolly hares regularly, as do Siberian weasels." why is the last one tacked on instead of just listed with the rest if the same applies for them all?
  • The first two are birds of prey, linking to the prior sentence; I was having trouble figuring out a way to list these three animals that wouldn't read as close paraphrasing from the source. -RR

• "and its population is described as "very low except in a few favoured areas"." by who? Direct quotes should have in-text attribution.
  • Attributed now.

• "The species' genome was sequenced in 2024.[17]" not sure what this has to do with conservation, would make more sense under taxonomy where you already talk about genetics.
  • It's now under the new "phylogenetics" subheading. -RR

• The drawing is now in a kind of odd spot, squeezing the cladogram. Since it's a historical images, perhaps move it up to the very beginning of the taxonomy section? If you're concerned about "sandwiching" with the taxobox, don't worry, that even flies at Featured Article Candidates.
  • It is at the start of the taxonomy section, but appears later on because of the Simplified Chinese template. I could solve that by using a langx template instead at the start of the article. -RR
• Source review next.

• Hodgson 1840 supports the text here, but the first page gives some context/insight into his studies that could be included here: At a glance, it seems he wanted to prove that the hares of the "Gangetic provinces" differed from Europe. Perhaps other interesting info can be teased out.
  • I added some, but I don't know how much of it is worth including because for the vast majority of his article Hodgson is describing the Indian hare and just mentions the woolly hare as an aside. -RR

• What is citation five, an online version of a book? If not, is it a reliable source?
  • It is the online version of Mammal Species of the World third edition. The Google Books preview provides the same exact information, but some pages are missing from the preview and it isn't as easily accessed as the database. -RR

• The Chinese citation 18 could have the language parameter.
  • Done -RR

• Source 16 checks out, but seems most of the cited info is just in the abstract, is there not more in the full paper that could be used?
  • I've added some from that article - though it is fairly specific to a small part of the hare's distribution, it's more detail than most reference works provide w.r.t. prominent plants. -RR

• Source 11 says "making it the highest-altitude rabbit species in the world. In contrast, the typical habitat of rabbits rarely exceeds 600 m at altitude12." that is very significant info that should be present both in the article body and intro.
  • I do not see this as being a particularly qualified claim to include - while the average altitudinal range of the species is the highest among the leporids (corroborated by the table in reference 13 - Heldstab 2021), the source used to support this claim is dated (1985) and does not match up with current sources (IUCN 2019, Smith 2018) that put the range from 2500 to 5400 m. Plus, Heldstab 2021 provides information on the mean altidude of all rabbit species, many of which are present above 600 m (Romerolagus diazi, Brachylagus idahoensis, Lepus comus). This reference in my view is only useful for the "sequenced genome" fact. -RR

• Everything looks good to me, so I'll promote it now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)