Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcano rabbit/archive1: Difference between revisions

Volcano rabbit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 1 October 2025, 00:15 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): — Reconrabbit 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is all about the volcano rabbit, an ancient, rather small species of endangered Mexican rabbit with a rather small distribution. I’ve worked on a few mammal articles over the past couple years and believe this to be the closest among those I’ve developed to be around featured article status. — Reconrabbit 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should go quick, so I’ll get to it tomorrow (busy tonight). ^EF⁵ 20:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll check the licensing when I get home this afternoon; Commons is blocked on our network. ^EF⁵ 12:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to the highway’s alt text and clarified the relevance of Pinus hartwegii. If the sandwiching is a major issue, I would prefer to remove the image rather than move it elsewhere, since it pertains to the taxonomy more than anything else. — Reconrabbit 20:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if I’ll do a full review, but I did just notice something that may need tweaking.

• ” there is evidence that the species loses a significant amount of genetic diversity when it reproduces in such conditions”: this phrasing makes it appear that it’s the nature of the captive environment that causes the loss of diversity in some way. I can’t access the source, but I would expect this to be because the captive population have not been bred as part of a breeding program designed to retain genetic diversity. With a small captive population, inbreeding is almost guaranteed without a management plan. That’s the standard approach for captive breeding, and I think the article needs to make it clearer what the cause is of the lack of diversity. If I’m wrong and there really is something else causing the loss of genes, I think we should say what that is.

— Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 15:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montiel et al state in their 2009 work that “The results of this study differ from what was expected”, though it does seem self evident that the small founding group of the captive population is the main source of lower genetic variability, they suggest something else contributes. The conclusion gives that “some alleles of the wild population have been lost in the Chapultepec colony, with the average heterozygosis approximately 2.17% greater in the wild population” – is this something that can be readily explained in the text beyond just “evidence”? I tried to expand on what the “significant loss in diversity” is, but genetics are not something I know a lot about — Reconrabbit 17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s surprising. I can’t access the paper; would you mind sending me a copy, or screenshots of the relevant pages? I’ll send you a Wikipedia email so you have my email address. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s what I think is the relevant quote: “Although there has been interest in the reproduction of the species both in laboratory conditions and semi-captivity, at this time the only known reproductive nucleus is located in Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City, which originates from a small number of founders in a random breeding structure during 20 generations. Given this situation, the objective of this study was to estimate the loss of genetic variability in a captive population in relation to the wild population of Romerolagus diazi through the use of a RAPD analysis.” This is a clear statement that there was no managed breeding, and a small gene pool to begin with. I would suggest rephrasing the last two sentences of the first “Conservation” paragraph to something like “Since then, further attempts have been met with varying success, but captive-bred infants have high mortality. The only breeding group in captivity, in Chapultepec Zoo, began with a small number of rabbits, and over the course of 20 generations has lost genetic diversity in comparison with the wild population.” Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 00:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first sentence of “Behavior and ecology”. We have “The volcano rabbit lives in groups of 2 to 5 individuals” vs “Zacatuches live in groups of two to five individuals” The wording is too close, see WP:PARAPHRASE. I’d rewrite it as “[volcano rabbit] groups consist of between two and five members”. Its still early, so I would check the paraphrasing in the rest of the article to be safe. I made a slight change here. LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]