This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Is this original work? Even if it is, you might want to rework that last sentence so that it means something to a layperson. -- Zoe
No, it's based on a PD government article, I would rework it but for some reason when I click edit it's just giving me a blank page. --Imran
Is mammoth always capitalized? Are there other types of ivory that make this article necessary? Tuf-Kat
Wow -- gotta say, this page is almost totally incomprehensible. I have no expertise in the subject, so I won't attempt an edit, but this is incredibly poor quality, not at all up to normal wikipedia standards. It tells the uninformed almost nothing about mammoth ivory. There's more useful information about mammoth ivory on the 'ivory' page! Why is there even an "elephant and mammoth" page? A separate "mammoth ivory" page makes sense, but then you'd want to actually include some information about mammoth ivory! (Sorry to be so harsh, just telling it like it is.) 71.14.181.69 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected
I went ahead and
WP:BOLDly redirected this page to Ivory. I say it's bold primarily because it was created way back in 2002, but since then this subject (or these two subjects) have been covered at ivory, ivory trade, elephant, mammoth, tusk, and probably others. It doesn't provide any significant new information and, most importantly, at least a few of those others cover the subject(s) with a narrower focus, using clearer language, and using more and better sources. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
