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:
Resolved issues
The article is not (but should be) consistent in its use of "Grévy" vs. "Grevy".
I suggest replacing "living" with "extant" throughout the article to avoid confusion.
"He named it after Jules Grévy, a president of France," I don't understand why this employs the indefinite article "a" without a qualifier. I suggest replacing with either "He named it after Jules Grévy, then the president of France," or "He named it after Jules Grévy, a former president of France," depending on which is more accurate.
The dashes used in the article desperately need to be cleaned up. Per WP:DASH, an endash should be used to indicate a range of numbers, which occurs frequently in the first paragraph of Distribution and habitat.
The references are not readily accessible. For books, please add ISBNs or links to Google Books entries. For journals, please add DOIs or links.
Similarly, the references are not easily verifiable. Some of the page ranges given are very large or simply nonexistent, which makes it difficult for readers to find the information themselves. I suggest either using the {{Rp}} template to specify individual page numbers (see Protein C for an example), or using a two-section Footnotes / References system (see GRB 970508 for an example).
Avoid contractions, such as "it's".
The lead should be expanded to adequately summarize the entire article. The rule of thumb is that I like to use is that every major section of the article should be represented by at least one sentence in the lead. I suspect, however, that the body of the article will expand during the course of this review, so it may be prudent to leave this issue for last.
The lead still needs more meat in it. 8 choppy sentences is not enough to adequately summarize a 1500-word article. How many individuals are alive today? What do they eat? What types of habitats are they found in? These are all obvious questions that should be answered in the lead.
The article needs an Ecology section or subsection. See Bobcat or Common stingray for examples.
The ecology still needs to be fleshed out. What animals eat this zebra? What parasites make their home on this zebra?
Added parasites. The predators where already there.
In the distribution map, why is there a red dot in the southern tip of Kenya? I suggest either adding a color key or making all of the dots uniform in color.
Please make an effort to contact the image author or correct the mistake yourself. It's a .png, so you shouldn't require any special software to make the change. MS Paint should work just fine if you're running Windows.
"It is the sole member of the subgenus Dolichohippus, although fossil members have been found in Africa and Asia." It's not clear here if "fossil members" refers to "fossil members of this species" or "fossil members of other species in the subgenus". If it's the first case, I don't see how the two clauses are relevant.
"Males and their territories and females and their foals form the basis of the social system of the Grévy's zebra." It may not be clear to the reader that this begins with two two-element lists rather than one four-element list. Perhaps "Male territoriality and mother–foal relationships form the basis of..." would be better.
I believe the article is underlinked. See WP:UNDERLINK for ideas of what links can be added. We shouldn't assume that all of our readers will know what words like "mane" and "harem" mean. "Their hindgut fermentation digestive system allows them to subsist on diets of lower nutritional quality than that necessary for ruminant herbivores." Is a good example of a sentence that desperately needs more links.
"They may spend 60–80% of their days eating" Does this mean that they only eat three days out of every five? Or does this mean that within a given 24-hour period, they spend 60–80% of the time eating? Or does this mean that, of the time spent awake, they spend 60–80% of the time eating?
Forgot where I heard that from so I deleted it.
"The mane is tall and erect; juveniles have a mane that extends the length of the back." So what happens to the mane as the zebra grows older? Mentioning a feature of juveniles implies that the feature is not present in adults, but this should be made explicit.
"As in all zebras, foals are born brown and white instead of black and white." This new phrase loosely implies that the dark stripes change from brown to black as the foals grow older, though this transition is not entirely clear because the article has not yet mentioned whether adult stripes are brown or black. I suggest either to make the color-age relationship clearer. Also, where is the reference for this (and, presumably, the previous) statement?
Footnote: "Youth, H. (2004). Thin Stripes on a Thin Line. ZooGoer. 33." What does the 33 refer to?
Don't know but it labels itself that. Scroll to the very bottom.
Ah, it makes more sense now that you've added the (6). Any time you see the #(#) notation, the first number is the volume, and the number inside the parentheses is the issue. So, in this case, the info came from Volume 33 Issue 6. --Cryptic C62 · Talk02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They do however require well watered highlands during the dry season." I don't understand what this means. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that this is the first and only mention of "highlands" through the entire article, leading me to wonder "why would they need highlands during the dry season?" I suspect I would not be alone in this confusion.
"In certain regions of Kenya, Plains zebras and Grévy's zebras coexist." Citation definitely needed for this claim.
I don't think the current wording is any better, as it still leaves the reader wondering what time frame the statement might be relevant in. I suggest employing "as of" along the year mentioned in the source (or the year the source was published).
"Currently" is no better than "recently". If the population drops off and no one updates this sentence, it will become false. That is the scenario that we want to avoid, and the best way to do it is to use the "as of" construction. Please make an effort to determine how recently it has been said that the Grevy population is stable.
"It has a social system characterised by small groups of adults associated for short time periods of a few months" Two problems: First, it's not clear what "associated" means here. Do they simply graze in the same place, or do they behave as a herd? Second, "short time periods of a few months" is redundant. Pick one of the two phrases, not both.
"Individuals may associate together" The same "association" problem as above.
"However when a stallion enters the territory of another stallion" The meaning of "stallion" definitely needs to be clarified here. Stallion is no help, as that article is about horses.
"However, territorial stallions will tolerate other stallions who wander in their territory, unless an estrous female is present to which the territorial stallion drives off any male nearby." Some weird grammar issues going on here. Assuming I've interpreted this correctly, I suggest replacing this sentence with "However, territorial stallions will tolerate other stallions who wander into their territory, unless an estrous female is present, in which case the territorial stallion will drive off any males nearby."
"They also rub against trees, rocks and other objects to get rid of irritations like itchy skin/hair or parasites." Never ever ever use slashes to separate items in a list in formal writing.
"Gestation of the Grévy's zebra lasts 390 days" The exact same number every time? Or is this an average?
"Males may stay with their mothers even longer." How much longer? Even a rough estimate would be helpful here.
The lead should also mention why the Grevy's zebra is referred to as such.
The Taxonomy and naming section should discuss where the alternative name "Imperial zebra" came from, if such information is available. See below.
"Later, it was largely forgotten about in the Western world for a thousand years" The use of "later" suggests imprecision, which contrasts with the precision of "a thousand years". This leaves me wondering: is there or is there not a particular time frame that the zebra was forgotten?
"It was recognized as distinct from the better known zebras of southern Africa and was named in Grévy’s honor." Recognized by whom? Or when? Without one of these two pieces of information, the phrase "it was recognized" juts out awkwardly.
"However recent data shows a potential increase in populations in both Kenya and Ethiopia and the Grévy's zebra population trend is currently considered stable." What does "potential increase" mean? This sentence employs "currently", which is a problem we discussed earlier.
"Cattle are around watering holes" What does this mean? I feel like there's a missing word between "are" and "around".
"Community-based conservation efforts have shown to be more effective in preserving Grévy's zebras and their habitat." More effective than what?
"In Kenya, the Buffalo Springs, Samburu, Shaba N.R. National Reserves and the private and community land wildlife conservancies in Isiolo, Samburu and the Laikipia Plateau provide a core and crucial protection of Kenya’s southern population of Grévy's Zebra." It is redundant to mention "Kenya" twice in this one sentence. I suggest removing one of the two instances.
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)[reply]
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 · Talk04:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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"?
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)[reply]
