Talk:Black mamba/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article in the coming days. It's always nice to see a subject I've heard of at GAN. I'll make minor adjustments to the article as I go and post larger issues or things I'm unsure of here. ~HueSatLum 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Images look good on copyright; however, a view of the entire snake might be better for the description to show its considerable length. ~HueSatLum 16:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing a lot of work, expansions and improvements on various articles relating to venomous snakes, so I will be making serious adjustments to this article so that it passes and gets GA status. Herpetology is my field of study and my main area of focus is on venomous snake species, particularly elapids such as mambas, kraits, cobras, etc. I hope you work in tandem with me to get this article on one of the most important and probably most famous venomous snake species in the world to GA status. The article obviously requires some serious amount of improvement and the work will take time. I plan on taking the lead here with regards to this article and I will be making major changes and improvements. Science is my thing and I was never all that great with grammar and writing, so I can be hasty and errors may/will likely pop up here and there. I ask that you as the reviewer keep an eye out for issues related to grammar, improper wording, etc. I can be hasty with my writing and I am generally much more comfortable with bullet points, but encyclopedic articles cannot be written like that for obvious reasons. Cheers! --DendroNaja (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A few comments to start off (Feel free to revert my changes if they are incorrrect.): ~HueSatLum 02:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Judging from Template:Taxobox, the names after the synonyms in the infobox are not parenthesized; the last one is and should probably be changed, but I'm not sure.
• The scalation table is probably better presented in a list, as it is now a table with one entry.
• The level 3 headings in the Distribution, habitat, and status section should probably be removed or changed to level 2 headings; they do not seem very related.
• "a curious distribution" – What exactly does "curious" mean? Who says it's curious? (It sounds pretty POV.)
• Are there any examples of "stories and legends that have been passed down from generation to generation"?
• Just how expensive is antivenom typically?

I have made changes to the Behaviour section and added more references. I will be working on more parts of the article later today. --DendroNaja (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As to the "a curious distribution- curious in this context means "strange, unusual, atypical or even mysterious", so in my opinion the usage of the word to describe the black mamba's distribution west of Ethiopia is appropriate and fitting. It's the exact word that Spawls and Branch used to describe its western distribution. However, if you or anyone else have a better word to use I will change it. --DendroNaja (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's fine if it's backed by a source; I was just, er, curious. ~HueSatLum 22:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

According to http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?fuseaction=main.antivenoms.antivenom&id=SAfSAI03 in 2005 the cost at source of SAIMR Polyvalent Antivenom was US$77 per 10ml vial - 8 to 20 vials is normally required to treat a bite. I could not find a more recent definitively dated price. The cost of delivery from Johannesburg South Africa would have to be added. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the Global Snakebite Initiative, the cost is USD $160. Thea Litschka-Koen also stated that the cost was over USD $100 per vial. Those prices are circa 2011-2012. Many black mamba bites require more than 20 vials, and the typical initial dose is 10 vials. --DendroNaja (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A few more comments:~HueSatLum 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• There are two (21 & 26) footnotes that have an |accessdate= set, but no |url=. These generate citation errors and should be removed.
• The title in FN52 is missing a closing </sup> tag.
• Does doi:10.1073/pnas.88.6.2437 load for you? It eventually gets a 503 Proxy Error on my end; then it should probably be removed from FN55 (A PMC and PMID should be plenty.)
• FN1 is better cited with {{IUCN}}. (That's IUCN, not ICUN, as the ref name says.)
• FN3 should be cited with a {{ITIS}} template like the one above it.
• There are some dead links you should check out.

I took care of all your recent requests. And yes doi:10.1073/pnas.88.6.2437 does load for me. --DendroNaja (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it works for me now too. It must have been temporary website maintenance or something. ~HueSatLum 23:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Images look good: all are PD or CC with OTRS.
• An image like File:Dendroaspis polylepis 01.jpg that shows the mamba's considerable length would be nice for the physical appearance section.
• FNs 18 and 19 appear to only cover the immediately preceding sentence (unless the rest is in the JSTOR article); the whole Etymology section could probably be reffed up anyways.
• Physiology: Is there anything about the black mamba that is different from snakes in general in regards to physiology? That section (and the source) deal with all snakes.
• MOS:ALLCAPS recommends using title case instead of all caps, particularly FNs 4 and 16.

I took care of all your recent requests, anything else you see that I may not see? --DendroNaja (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• You still haven't addressed the second bullet above.
• The link on FN37 goes to a form, not the presumably intended page; however, that page uses frames and does not have a unique URL for each result. The page that the frameset calls, [1], returns an error when called on its own. You should either indicate how to get to the desired page, and/or link to this PDF (which AFAICT has Rwanda highlighted).
• Spotchecks look mostly good (From what I have access to—I'm accepting the paywalled or offline stuff in good faith.)
• There is some close paraphrasing with FN76 that should be fixed. ~HueSatLum 02:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I did address the second bullet. I replaced the image with the one you suggested. I changed the wording around in the 'Relationship with humans' section as best as I could. --DendroNaja (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the one that says, "The scalation table is probably better presented in a list, as it is now a table with one entry." ~HueSatLum 02:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the table with a multi-column list, so that takes care of that. I need a little bit of help with grammar, wording, etc. If you happen to come across misspelled words, grammar problems, and the like, please correct them if you can. If not, tell me and I will try to correct all such problems. I think the article is broad in its coverage of the subject matter (covering all major aspects of the black mamba in quite intimate detail - etymology, evolutionary history, biology, distribution, habitat, prey, predators, venom, etc.). There is no evident bias in the article. I have laboured long and hard in search of the most reliable sources in order to present a fair and balanced representation of the subject matter. I dug up old books that I own and gone through countless of them to make sure I can only use sources of the utmost reliability (all my books are advanced and technical type books, written by actual herpetologists or other biologists who specialize in venomous snakes eg. Spawls, S; Branch, Bill, Fitzsimons, Broadley, DG, Ernst, Zug, Marais, J. Engelmann, etc.). --DendroNaja (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Now that there is an external links section, consider adding {{Commons category}} and {{Wikispecies}} there.
• I am concerned that the case studies section in particular is too long; the individual cases should either be shortened and/or some be removed. (The section on venom is almost half of the page's prose size, which gives undue weight to that over the rest of the article. Given, the snake is well-known for its venom, so it should cover that in some detail)
• References should be formatted with cite templates, especially 23, 50 (and combined with 84), 71

Anything else? --DendroNaja (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• FNs 39–42, 51, and 84 should be formatted with {{cite AV media}}
• The first YouTube video in the external links doesn't appear to exist.
• The second YouTube EL (with Jeff Corwin) is already cited in the article and should be removed from the ELs. ~HueSatLum 16:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• It's not worth putting 0m01s for FNs 40 and 41 to mean the beginning of the video; you should just remove that parameter.

Done. Anything else? --DendroNaja (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• |language=English is pretty much given and redundant.
• FN51 is still unformatted.
• The format parameter in cite AV media is for actual file formats (like OGG or WMV). ~HueSatLum 13:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm unsure what you mean about the last bullet. Can you lend me a hand, please? --DendroNaja (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, it doesn't apply to YouTube videos, and you should remove it. (see Template:Cite AV media/doc#URL for an explanation of when it should and should not be used.) ~HueSatLum 19:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I still don't get it. Do you mean I should convert the youtube video into a format like WMV or OGG? --DendroNaja (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't need to do anything with the video. The format parameter is for videos in a format that may require a special plugin or program to view, so anything that's on a web page doesn't need that at all. I think I've fixed all the issues with those templates. The review should be in the home stretch now; now I will read through it again. ~HueSatLum 22:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Anything else you see, just tell me. --DendroNaja (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I will fill this in as I go along

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am passing this as a GA as I am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed and it meets/exceeds the criteria. It was an interesting read and nice to see a subject I've even heard of at GAN, which was why I chose to review it. Just a note: if you plan on taking it to FA, make sure the citation fields are filled out correctly; however, I do not believe this is a barrier to GA. ~HueSatLum 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this article meet the criteria for GA status with a section packed full of rubbish about homeopathy? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because that section was not present when I promoted the article: Special:PermanentLink/588289096. It was added later and not checked against the criteria. ~HueSatLum 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am curious to know if it would have passed with that stuff present. I cannot figure it out myself by looking at the GA criteria. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In the state it was in, definitely not, and most likely not with just a mention. Going into the same detail for all "alternative" methods of curing the venom clears up the weight issues, but it is definitely not appropriate for the article in its current state. ~HueSatLum 17:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my questions. It was most helpful. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that there's a thread on the talk page, please continue this there if you want. ~HueSatLum 17:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)