Talk:Black mamba/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LittleJerry (talk · contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are some tasks that need to be done before I pass this for GA.

Done:*Website citations should list the author (if given), accessdate and publisher. Only the title should be hyperlinked to the site.

Done:*The "Environmental encroachment" subsection needs a few more cites.

Done:*Female black mamba's can be especially aggressive if they have an egg nest to protect. This should be moved to the above paragraph where it talks have the snake defending itself.

Done:*The majority of book cites are given isbn's but there are some that aren't. Be consistant on whether books are given isbn's.

Done:*Some claims are sourced to in-text last name citations. Either the whole sources should be cited in or they should be deleted.

Done:*The last sentence in the lede should be split. I don't see why the mamba being deadly would make it surprising that it is featured in myths and stories.

Done:*The indigenous people of Africa that live in the black mamba's range share stories of how this snake has been seen chasing away herds of Cape buffalos, wildebeests, and even chasing away humans. I suggest changing this to Indigenous African have told stories of the mamba chasing herds of Cape buffalos, wildebeests, and even chasing humans.

Done:*It is a shy and secretive snake in general; it always seeks to escape when a confrontation occurs, unless cornered in which case the black mamba can put up a fearsome display of defense and aggression. Since the tone of the section emphasises it's aggressiveness I suggest replacing this sentence with Although it is generally shy and secretive; always seeking to escape when a confrontation occurs, the black mamba can put up a fearsome display of defense and aggression when corned.

Done:*The video of the lion and the mamba does not show the snake killing the cat nor state that this has been recorded. It doesn't belong here.

Done:*These snakes will often avoid confrontation when possible and will retreat to a safe location when a potential predator is seen, but they will defend their territory and aggressively try to ward of any predator which corners it or bothers it long enough, including humans. This sentence essentially repeats what is said in the previous paragraph. It should be deleted.

Done:*The black mamba is a diurnal snake. Although its scientific name seems to be indicative of tree climbing, the black mamba is rarely an arboreal snake. The second "black mamba" should be changed to "it" and the sentences should be move to the start of the "Behavior" section.

Done:*To illustrate this level of fearlessness and aggression, a case where a black mamba bit and killed an adult female elephant in 2006 exists. This sentence is redundant as this incident is already mentioned above and will be again in the "Venom" section in more detail.

Done:*They have been known to prey on bushbabies, bats, and small chickens.[13] The black mamba feeds almost solely on warm-blooded animals, such as birds and small mammals including hyraxes and various rodents. This should be switched to This species feeds almost solely on warm-blooded animals, such as birds and small mammals including hyraxes and various rodents. It has even been known to prey on bushbabies, bats, and small chickens. and the moved up to be the second and third sentences in the sub-section.

Done:*The "Predators" section contains some capitalization of "black mamba" and "mambas". Also "Black necked spitting cobra", "King Cobra", "Cobra" and "Yellow mongoose" should not be captialized.

Done:*Among mambas (Dendroaspis species) toxicity of individual specimens within the same species and subspecies can vary greatly based on several factors including geographical region (there can be great variation in toxicity from one town or village to another) and even weather can impact the toxicity of a particular specimen. The bolded part is redundant.

Done:*Remove the the sentence advertising the Eleanor site. It doesn't add much.

This review came to my attention via (I think?) Casliber's talk page. A couple of comments (although I'm unsure if these relate to WIAGA-- they would relate to WP:WIAFA). The article appears to be overcited-- some text that appears uncontroversial is cited to multiple sources. Is that necessary? Also, the article mixes citation style (there are inline citations as well as ref tags); why is that done? I also see statements like "Presently ... "; please be aware of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. And some prose redundancy ("very explosive" is the same as "explosive" no?) Good luck, it looks like you're off to a great start! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Did a lot of the work you asked to be done - especially the switching of sentences around, taking out capitals in the "Predators" section and elsewhere, the web citations I corrected, and I added the ISBN's to the books which I could, I also took out what you told me to take out (ie. the Eleanor site, lion/mamba video, etc). I think there is still some stuff left undone, but I did most of what you asked and I will definitely finish whatever else that's left. Bastian (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you put a: Done by the ones you have done? I also still see some intext citations and there are still some web citations not corrected (cites 47-53 and cite 61). LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've been gone for a few days, I've just been really busy and haven't had time to check this out. I will put the check marks next to the items which I completed now and I'll also cross them out. There is still some work to be done and I will have it done, no doubt. The three on top that haven't been crossed out or check marked still got to be done also. Bastian (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Takt your time. You're almost there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I just spent the last few hours fixing what you asked to be fixed and I think I'm done. However, if you see other issues let me know and I will continue to work hard to bring it up to par. The material is objective and scientifically accurate, the only problem is the formatting of the references/citations (which I think I have taken care of fully, but I'll let you be the judge). The other issue is wording and jumbled up sentences, which I also have taken care of. So I think I am done, but I'll let you judge. Bastian (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)