Wikipedia:Peer review/Domestic rabbit/archive1

Domestic rabbit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because after cleaning up all the maintenance templates I've found that the quality is all over the place. I would like to have someone else's eyes on it to see if there are redundant sections or obvious problems that I missed; ideally, I'd like to promote this to GA in the future.

Thanks, Recon rabbit 18:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by PJW

I noticed this on a list of articles requesting peer review and swung by just out of curiosity. I have no subject-specific background. That said, here are a few minor suggestions:

The images in the History section display strangely in a way that creates way too much white space, at least on a large monitor.
The lead describes them almost entirely as pets. The body, however, also discusses them more diversely.
~~I would also consider moving Experimentation down lower in the article to be a section of its own alongside As pets and As livestock. Possibly these three could be grouped under a single header.~~
The article says there are eleven coat patterns, but only four are shown. If these four somehow form the basis for the eleven, that should be explained more clearly. Otherwise, there should probably be just one picture. Alternatively, although I have no experience working with this template, you could find the other seven and make a gallery.
The Health section is way too long. It also appears to include information not specific to domestic rabbits. I would suggest creating a child page for this content and using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
Although it contains what looks to be some relevant and well-sourced material, I don't believe an encyclopedia should have a section on Advantages and disadvantages. I would move select material elsewhere in the article and eliminate the section.
I see now that there is already a section on experimentation, which I think is probably (?) misclassified as being a form of livestock use. Unless there is a good reason to retain this classification, I would move that up one heading level and integrate the material from the History section into it as appropriate. Experimentation would be worth a sentence or two as part of their history, but this doesn't fit well as the lone subsection of the first section of the article.
Do the sources confirm that rabbits used in these other ways (i.e., not as pets) are, in fact, classified as "domestic"? I'm guessing this is right, but I would at least check.
When you're satisfied with the body of the article, review WP:LEAD and make edits there accordingly.

Best wishes with the article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I had done some work on the maintenance of this article and noted initially that the subject was confused on whether it wanted to be about the domesticated rabbit in general or rabbits as pets, but not the specifics on why that was. I'll be working to make the scope more coherent around the end of next week. Recon rabbit 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. If you haven't already, you might consider advertising this request for reviews on the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects or that of the rabbit article in order to get some more content-based feedback. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]