Talk:Domestic rabbit/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead


 * Don't think we need a redlink to shows in the lead.
 * Just recently TanRabbitry and I were working on a draft of a page on rabbit shows. I'll remove the link until the page is ready for mainspace.


 * History


 * Not convinced we need the "controversial" Hispania theory, suggest we just drop it as spurious.
 * The theory is exceptionally old, as is its source - I've removed it.


 * Please remove the inter-language link.
 * Done.


 * Terminology


 * The key thing missing is the etymology of "Rabbit". Suggest the chapter moves to top above 'History', and is renamed 'Etymology and naming'. It would be helpful to provide etymologies for all the terms described.
 * This section looks to be word-for-word copied from Rabbit. I can use the same info if it's reasonable to do so (with attribution). Would be nice to use the OED for this etymology but I can't get through the paywall.


 * Experimentation


 * The section seems misplaced as it's very different from the History. Suggest we put it at the end, as it's a human use of rabbits. Suggest that you make 'Human uses' a chapter heading and group 'Pets', 'Livestock', 'Science', and 'Cosmetics testing' as separate subsections of it (i.e. split the current 'Experimentation').
 * Done.


 * Diet


 * The 'Diet' subsection is basically not biology but animal husbandry, all that detail about food pellets and muesli-style foods, so it needs to come out of that chapter. It'll work better next to 'Care' in the 'As pets' chapter.


 * The text seems somehow hypertrophied, overfed to coin a phrase. "It is recommended..." comes very close to WP:NOTHOWTO, and the second paragraph is excessively long. Suggest we cut it down. It's not Wikipedia's job to describe quantities or to recommend anything, indeed we shouldn't ever do that. Phrasing like "Additionally, numerous studies have found..." is just fluff. Really, the section needs to be completelyl rewritten to be terse and factual.
 * This section has been trimmed significantly to reflect the sources in what is described as typical for the domestic rabbit on a whole. The short piece specific to pet rabbits has been excised and moved to 'Care'; I don't believe there is enough there to warrant a subsection on the diet of pet rabbits compared to the whole of domestic rabbits. There could still be some information under Diet that I can supplement with the Rabbit Production source if necessary.


 * Digestion


 * Suggest you remove this as it's covered at Rabbit and doesn't seem to have any special implications over here.
 * Done.


 * Reproduction


 * The paragraph on milk is mainly or wholly off-topic, as is the comparison table, again a matter for Rabbit not this article. Suggest you remove those items.
 * Done.


 * As pets


 * Why is Some people consider rabbits a pocket pet even though they are rather large. encyclopedic? Also uncited, best we chuck it. Actually, the whole section is verbose, rambling, partially cited, and not terribly useful. It needs rewriting at a quarter of its length, or less. Ask yourself what you are trying to say; focus on the key points; state them directly; and stop.
 * The section is much shorter than it was before and much has been cut out that was uninformative, repetitive or not straightforward.


 * House rabbits


 * Rabbits as house companions ... fire had gone out. is 'History' and should be moved there; actually, probably the whole paragraph. Suggest you add one of Beatrix Potter's PD images of her own (real) domestic rabbits (not a Peter Rabbit image) alongside the text, with date.
 * Moved; will search for those images.
 * I did find one photo of Beatrix with one of her rabbits, though I don't know where best to put it considering the way the other images are formatted. I have placed it to the left for now. commons:File:Beatrix and Peter Rabbit photo.jpg


 * All areas should be "rabbit-proofed"... seems like advice, which we must not offer.
 * This has been sourced back to the HRS as it is an important factor in the use of domestic rabbits, which must chew on things as a normal behavior in order to prevent detrimental health issues.


 * rabbits are alert, timid creatures that startle fairly easily seems sentimental. The whole paragraph seems redundant, actually. Really, I think you should read through the entire section, pick out any parts that actually say anything useful, and then redraft the section to be a great deal shorter. Wikipedia wants a terse, encyclopedic summary of the "main points", not an extensive disquisition on fluffiness relative to guinea pigs. So, let's start over.
 * I've done what I can to trim it to the pertinent information.


 * Bonding


 * A weak section; there's very little science here, and the text is far too long for what little it does say. For instance, However, not all bonding attempts result in success, and sometimes bonds may break due to various factors, would be struck out in red ink by any teacher marking a school exercise book as uninformative waffle. It is also far too close to WP:NOTHOWTO. Please compress it to 2 or 3 short sentences.
 * The how-to information has been removed but the section still has some meat to it. Forgive me if I am missing something here, but I have kept a lot of the writing as it describes a fairly important facet of domestic rabbit ownership and behavior.


 * The last paragraph is half-uncited and wholly off-topic, please cut it.
 * The compatibility of the domestic rabbit with other domestic pets is a common concern, as well as its temperament and compatibility with children. The pertinent information has been trimmed.


 * See also


 * The portal link adds no new information for readers; the (many) properly contextualized links in the article are far more helpful and provide instant navigation. Let's get rid of it; it's also wrecking the reference column format, by the way.
 * Done. Also trimmed some of the ELs. Everything in the See also section was already presented in the article as further reading or main articles of certain sections.


 * Can't really see why we need small pet, dog, cat, bird here.
 * See Also section has been removed.

Images

 * There should not be extra images in the lead (users can hide the Table of Contents, for one thing); and not sure that talking about "sploot"s is encyclopedic in that caption. Best we drop that image.
 * The only image in the lead is now the one in the infobox.


 * The hunting rabbit women don't seem to have clubs in that image.
 * The caption has been changed.


 * I've centred the Titian image so it doesn't run into the next section.


 * The meat-bred rabbits image needs to be cited, and to have accompanying text in the article; that should probably be in 'History', in which case please put the image up there too.
 * The meat-breed rabbits photo does not seem to have any particular significance to history, only that rabbits have been raised for meat since the 1900s, which warrants its remaining in that location as a representation of commercial meat farming.


 * Peaux de Lapin image should be |upright.
 * Done.


 * Several of the images have absurdly sentimental and unencyclopedic captions: A bonded rabbit pair often can be found snuggling with each other. is perhaps the most egregious, but A Holland Lop hiding in a cardboard box. As a prey species, domestic rabbits often make use of hiding spaces to manage threats and relieve stress.[80] is, I'd venture, sentimentality cloaked as science. Why not just say "A bonded rabbit pair" and "A Holland lop hiding", all the rest of the text is at best clutter, at worst ... something much worse. Even Rabbit kits suckling from their mother - the last 3 words are redundant or sentimental again. And we don't need the "at Polyface farm" either, we don't do commercial placements.
 * Comments on the images have been addressed; inappropriate captions have been shortened and/or adjusted to match text.

Summary

 * This article is not wholly ready for GAN. The writing is not as crisp, terse, and encyclopedic as it should be. Several sections are misplaced, requiring the article to be reorganized. Image captions in particular come across as sentimental rather than informative. Quite a bit of text strays dangerously close towards telling the reader how to keep rabbits. There are multiple citation needed tags. An immediate fail is certainly an option here, as the article now needs substantial rework, but my preference is to support articles through the GAN process.


 * I think there will have to be a second pass in this review once the comments made so far have been actioned: I hope they will be taken not just as items to fix but as indications that the article quality, all the way through, needs attention. If that attention is given to the text as a whole, then the second pass should be short. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to detail here. I'll do a second pass on the prose later today in addition to addressing the specific concerns here. Recon  rabbit  12:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone through a couple passes and believe I've addressed everything here. The one thing I'm uncertain about is the length of the "As pets" section and what is due or undue for inclusion. Also, I can't get access to Rabbit Production right now, though I am certain that is where the meat rabbit fryer/stewer and skinning information is. I'll get page numbers on that as soon as I can. Cleared that up and cleaned all the Cn tags and the meat rabbits section specifically. Recon  rabbit  18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful if you could just indicate very briefly under each item what you've done with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tried to do that for each item. If the current state still falls short then I will scrap the whole thing and try again some other time as most of the text was written by folks many years ago with different interpretations of what is useful information. Recon  rabbit
 * OK, much better. I think all we really need now is to get those two citation needed tags sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)