Talk:Smith's red rock hare

Smith's red rock hare has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 1, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Smith's red rock hare appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the Smith's red rock hare is a nocturnal species, it occasionally comes out during early mornings or late afternoons in places where it is not hunted?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Smith's red rock hare.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 04:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

With a few very minor tweaks, the article's grammar is correct, and together with its layout is compliant with MOS policies. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a fairly-sized number of reputable third-party sources in proportion to its length. Each source appears to have been made full use of, and there does not seem to be any original research. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article provides decent, informative coverage on all areas of the topic for which one would expect encyclopedic information. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains a neutral tone, from start to finish. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looking back as far as a month ago, in the revision history, the article does not appear to have suffered from edit warring or other disruptive behaviour from its contributors in that time. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

While the future addition of illustrative image/s of this species will further improve the article as is, what's most important at the moment is that the one image that is used in the article at this time is freely licensed, and serves a relevant purpose when used in this article; that being to provide a visual aide in identifying the species' habitat range. While you're doing that... (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]