# Talk:Grévy's zebra

Zebras are very calm animals! Not vicous or harmful! They are very good if you treat them right! So treat them right and they won't hurt you!
Please expand this. There should be a bit more information on the most famous zebra of all. :)
The Ronin 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There were two instances of clearly silly information. The head of the Grevy's is not thick and ponderous, but particularly narrow and long compared to other zebras. The Grevy's zebra is certainly not 9 feet tall and weighs more than 525 lbs. Srnec 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
as stated in the article, non-grevy's zebras are in the "Hippotrigis" taxon. I am changing it to "Hippotigris". Mang 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

More informichin abuot mountain zebra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.104.10 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 

Could someone post a reference for the Grevy's Zebra population numbers in the wild?  I'm not disputing it, but when I was in Samburu reserve, it seemed like the place was lousy with 'em.  I know it's probably a small area/high density type of deal, but seems incredible that there would only be 2000 of them left in the wild, even in such a small area.
207.42.135.25 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an anonymous statistic change: can we get a sourced figure?--Wetman (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grévy's Zebra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that, more so than many other topics, articles about taxonomy are an incredibly important resource to develop. As such, I think it will be a very satisfying experience for both of us to bring this up to GA (and hopefully FA) standards. It looks like some good work has been done on this article, but there are definitely some issues to be addressed before it can be called a Good Article. Let's have a look:

Comment: The "Distrbution and habitat" section was intended to be about the animal's overall ecology so I renamed it. In articles on land mammals I tend to lump range, habitat and diet as an "Ecology" section. Also, I didn't make the map but I think the person would did put the red dot there by accident. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Good progress so far. Once the structural issues have been resolved, we'll work on touching up the prose for readability/clarity etc. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Some editors consider it rude or improper when their comments are struck out by other authors. I generally don't care, as the act of striking out text conveys a very clear meaning, but I do want to point out that it is often helpful to discuss the issues if you're having trouble finding a suitable solution. In tricky areas, such as the wording of the population stability statement, I think you'll find it much easier to reach a good solution if we communicate back and forth rather than you simply trying various things on your own without discussing it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't find any information on why it's called the "Imperial Zebra". I guess it's because of it's size compared to other zebras. LittleJerry (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Okey doke, just keep an eye out for it if you do further research later on. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied with this article. Passed! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel that passing it so soon is hugely premature. One of the criteria for GA is stability. The daily stream of edits (seldom with edit summaries) scarcely justifies an opinion of stability. Sometimes it has felt as if editors have been working against each other here. For example: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species says:
Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalisation of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation. In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case — for example, "oak" or "lion". This means names are written in lower case except for proper nouns or words that start a sentence. Examples: "Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries" or "The Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis."
This is referenced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals, the parent project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, so I implemented it in the first paragraph recently (last edit of 14th Feb), with an edit summary referring to the above, but somebody has seen fit to undo that (without edit summary) by capitalising Plains and Mountain in the zebra names even though not the first word of the sentence. Again, LittleJerry and I have constructively exchanged  attempts to find a good paraphrase of what the IUCN list says
about Laikipia, but yesterday somebody just comes in and bats it aside, even though what we were saying is authoritatvely cited.
As to factual accuracy, less than 48 hours ago someone changed the binomial authority from the correct one (which has been correct in the article for ages and can be verified from MSW3 and/or IUCN) to Milne Edwards, supposedly on the basis of Prothero/Schoch. But that ii not what Prothero/Schoch say; nor do they say that he was the first to describe it, only that he spotted that it is different from more southerly zebras. By the way Prothero/Schoch is available on Google Books, but that link has not been provided yet.
As to being well written, well, maybe, but isn't it a bit soon to say that just 8 hours after you yourself described a sentence as "a giant mess"?
Please reconsider. --Stfg (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A big thank you to LittleJerry for handling this in the way that you did. I have re-read the article and it is indeed very well written. I withdraw my request for the GA status to be reconsidered. --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)