Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European hare/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016.

European hare

 * Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk); Chiswick Chap; Cwmhiraeth 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the European hare, a well-known and widespread mammal native to western Eurasia. It is the quintessential Lepus species and is known for its active breeding behavior; the source of the term "mad as a March hare". This article was at GA for a while and we recently expanded on it and copyedited it. We now feel its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz
The following references contain dead links: 23 to Acta Veterinaria Brno, 36 to Ecology, 54 to Lincolnshire Echo, 56 to The History of English Cookery, 58 and 59 to The British Food Trust. -Aa77zz (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'll need you for the ones on cooked hare. And Aa77zz, 36 works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All done, but they were 55, 57, and 58. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 36. These still don't work for me - I'm in London. Obviously the numbers will change if references are added or deleted:
 * 58 - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
 * 59 - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
 * Also, as web sources, these would require access-dates. -Aa77zz (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed both, used Davidson 2014 instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference 11 Palacios et al 2004. This source is obscure and thus unsuitable here. The genetic structure of the population in Cantabria seems rather specialised and I suggest deleting the sentence altogether. The genetic distinctiveness of different populations of Lepus europaeus is mentioned in: There is also a specialised 2014 article: Sanz-Martin et al Genetic Structure of Brown and Iberian Hare Populations in Northern Iberia: Implications for Conservation of Genetic Diversity doi:10.1002/jwmg.7 -Aa77zz (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Available from: Researchgate
 * Removed. The last paper you brought up is about translocations which are mentioned elsewhere in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

More:
 * The two references at the end of the first paragraph of the Taxonomy section only supported the last sentence. I've added two additional references but references are needed to support: Lepus is Latin for hare and the features distinguishing the genus Lepus from other leporids. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The cite got mixed up. The statement about Lepus is in parentheses and is commonly known and not disputed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses above. More comments:
 * A birth weight of 100g seems low. Kurta (1995) p104 gives 130g while Chapman and Flux (1990) give an average of 123g (range 100g-165g).
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps worth mentioning that young leverets disperse during the day and come together in the evening to suckle. See:
 * Done. can you do the others? LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that predation by felids is significant. The cited source - the Animal Diversity site (currently ref 21) lists wild cats (Felis silvestris). These aren't common and probably don't share the same habitat. On the other hand a young leveret would make a fine meal for a stoat.
 * I'm sure you're right, but I couldn't find anything specific to the European hare. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The anonymous source Ref 16 (Natural History Collections University of Edinburgh) is a poor source for the teeth. Ideally sources used in this article should contain inline references to the primary literature. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

More:
 * Reference 24 Ferracioli, P. et al. (2009) is too specialized and also unsuitable. It is an article in Portuguese from the proceedings of a conference. It is currently online but the printed version would be tricky to find. From the title the article is about hares in the Brazilian town of Londrina. For the distribution of European hares in South America there is: A scan is available from Reseachgate and I can access it here -Aa77zz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm back. I'm sorry for the delay in completing my review.
 * The figures for the length and weight are taken from Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife. I can see the brief article here. This isn't an ideal source for this data.
 * I have adjusted the length and weight, using a different source which has a narrower range. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above source gives the weight range as 2.5-7kg. The upper limit seems too large. A 2014 study of 528 hares shot in Poland reported weights in the range 3.42 to 4.32 kg. A 2009 study of 648 trapped hares reported weights in the range of 2.1 to 5.0kg. A Swedish study published in 1980 indicates a weight range of 3 to 5.1kg (see Figs 2 and 3). From these articles a range of 2.5 to 5kg would seem likely - but you need a suitable secondary source. (the IUCN article cites Macdonald and Barrett 1993 - Collins Field Guide: Mammals of Britain and Europe - but there is no online access and I'm far from a suitable library) Aa77zz (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Thank you for the rapid responses to my queries. Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk
Finally a living animal! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "precocial young" Explain in parenthesis?
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "up to 30 subspecies of European hare have been classified" Have been named/described? Classified seems a bit vague.
 * Described it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Any cladograms to show?
 * This paper contains a few but L. europaeus was not sampled. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "like other members of the family Leporidae (hares and rabbits)" Move that info up to when Leporidae is mentioned first in taxonomy.
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "There is a diastema" Explain gap/space.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "They are also negatively affected by large open fields with few hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas, because these habitats supply the varied diet they require." I'm not sure I understad this sentence. Or maybe I just read it wrong, I guess it is the lack of "hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas" that is the problem. But I was confused as to whether the last "these" referred to "open fields" or "few hedges etc.", so maybe it cold be clearer?
 * Rearranged sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "greater mortality of leverets." Never read that last term before, perhaps explain what it means? I see you do it later on, so should just be moved up.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "During daytime, a hare hides in a depression" In the ground?
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "They sometimes eat their own green, faecal pellets to recover proteins and vitamins" Add that this is because it is not fully digested?
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "both polygynous" Explain.
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Fox and inbreeding are overlinked.
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Young hares, known as leverets" Already explained by this point (food section).
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "It is related to and looks very similar to the European rabbit" Only stated in the intro.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "which is in the same family but in a different genus." Seems like too much detail for the intro, and isn't even stated this specifically in the article body.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The European hare is larger than the European rabbit, and has longer ears and more powerful hind limbs." Why so much comparison with the European rabbit in the intro compared to the article body? This specie sis described without having to be compared to the rabbit under description, should be so in the intro.
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - all looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support from Jim Great stuff, even my favourite quibble (are there any parasites?) has been foreseen. Just to show I've read it, note that the refs at the very end of "Food and hunting" are not in numerical order Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim, I was thinking of you while I was looking for parasites! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Did I miss image and source reviews above? If not, pls list at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review. All sources look reliable and of high quality. Formatting is mostly good. The only thing I'd note is that sometimes you have pages as, for example, 102–114, and sometimes as 102–14. Either is fine, but it should be consistant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made the page range formatting consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Lepus europaeus (Causse Méjean, Lozère)-cropped.jpg: Free image on Commons, using it to illustrate the animal seems fine. Derivative of a Flickr image and marked as such. Only basic EXIF but no evidence of prior publication.
 * File:European Hare area.png: Provenance map, may be more suited for the range and habitat section. The map information is vaguely sourced and needs to be cleaned up a little. OTRS license.
 * File:LiebreIberica (cropped).jpg: Photo of a subspecies, putting it in the taxonomy section is OK. Caption supported by section text. The image is derived from another image (File:LiebreIberica.jpg) with basic EXIF but no indication of copying.
 * File:Lepus europaeus 03 MWNH 1534.jpg: A photo of the skull is pertinent in the description section. Free license, sound EXIF, no indication of inappropriate copying or any other reason to doubt the copyright status.
 * File:Feldhase, Lepus europaeus 3a.JPG: Photo of a running hare, seems vaguely pertinent next to the section on their habitat. Good EXIF, free license, no indication of any impropriety.
 * File:Lepus europaeus (hiding).jpg: Photo of animal hiding, seems appropriate in the section on behaviours. Free license, good EXIF, where on Flickr is it if it is there?
 * File:Feldhasen Flutmulde.jpg: Photo of two hares feeding, seems pertinent in that section. Free license but there is something odd about the EXIF that needs to be checked out.
 * File:Zaječí hovínka na Bousce.JPG: Photo of faecal pellets, they are also discussed in the section. On Commons it's a quality image, good EXIF, no indication of copying.
 * File:Faust - Hochzeitslauf der Hasen 1.pdf: Free file illustrating the behaviour of hares in the section for this seems fine to me. OTRS license.
 * File:Lepus europaeus new born.jpg: Photo of newborn hares in the section for such animals seems fine for me. Free license, good EXIF, sole upload by uploader but no indication of copying.
 * File:Aquila chrysaetos 1 (Martin Mecnarowski).jpg: Photo of an eagle who has preyed on a hare seems pertinent in the section on mortality which discussed eagle predation. Free license but odd EXIF, apparently the photo exists elsewhere on the web but it's not visible on http://www.ixigo.com/mundumalai-and-bandipur-tiger-reserves-jumbo-adventures-in-the-nilgiris-story-1103604. commons:User:Trachemys~commonswiki/Martin Mecnarowski implies the images come from http://www.photomecan.eu/ is there evidence of permission?
 * File:Albrecht Dürer - Hare, 1502 - Google Art Project.jpg: A drawing of a hare by Albrecht Dürer (aside from being uncopyrighted for age reasons and tagged as such) in the section about folklore and the like seems pertinent. It has even its own article and is explicitly discussed in text.
 * File:Alice par John Tenniel 25.png: Photo of a scene including a hare in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland which is explicitly discussed in the section seems fine for me. The image is uncopyrighted due to age and tagged as such.
 * File:Ansdell Caledonian Coursing detail 2.jpg: Painting of a chase scene seems fine in the section on chases. Seems like it's uncopyrighted due to age and tagged as such.
 * File:01-sfel-08-009a.jpg: Title of the file is rubbish, but the file itself (a photo of a hare on cultivated land in the section on the effects of agriculture on hare populations seems pertinent) seems fine. Caption supported by section text. Free license but the EXIF is rather vague, no indication of prior publication.

All images need ALT text for accessibility reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added alt texts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * FTR, there was discussion on alt text at FAC several years ago and the consensus was not to make it a requirement owing (from memory) to questions over what constituted "useful" alt text. That said, I think it should be employed if properly written (there's the rub!) and if reviewers and nominators come to agreement on it, then as a coord I don't force the issue either way. It may be that we should have another discussion on it at WT:FAC, but I don't think this is the time given the amount of activity there lately, especially as no-one seems to have come to blows on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.