Talk:Black mamba/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was merely going to give some advice on the talk page, but since I wrote so much,I might as well just start the review. Preliminary observations below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, the lead seems way too long for an article of this size. Could easily be cut down. It should only be a summary, but now it is almost a copy of the entire article.

Done — I've cut it down somewhat, let me know if it does not go far enough. I'm not overly happy with the prose in the lede, seems clunky, but I'm stuck for ideas of how to improve it. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the sectioning seems a bit odd, you should take a look at FAs and GAs of related animals. The "biology" section seems a bit nonsensical, parts about behaviour, such as reproduction and lie span, should be moved to the section about behaviour, and the section should just be renamed "description/morphology" or some such.

Done

I don't really understand why reproduction and lifespan are behavioural characteristics? The snake does't 'learn' them, it's part of its biology. Surely? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction is no doubt behaviour (behaviour sections are about what the animal does and how it functions). Lifespan is a bit more tricky, but it is usually placed with behaviour. You could retitle behaviour into biology, the point is just that these issues do not belong with the physical description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took most of the section cues from Eastern green mamba. But, I'll work on changing as you suggest. I need to go and eat right now, but I'll follow this up later tonight. Thanks for you time so far. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, the Eastern green mamba does have some manual of style issues, so I wouldn't lean too much on it. Take a look at some featured reptile articles instead, such as Bog turtle and Komodo dragon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet list style info under description should be converted to prose.

Done

Cultural perceptions doesn't belong under behaviour either, and having a subsection under behaviour also called behaviour is redundant.

Done — I've renamed this to 'Attacks on humans' as that seemed to be more appropriate for the substance of that section and married it to 'Reported bite cases' Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the images have been size forced, you can just remove the 150px parameter.

Done

Lastly, galleries should not be used as mere decoration, try to incorporate the images to the text, or just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I'll read and review the article soon, but this should be something to start with.
Perhaps Snowmanradio has some medical observations, if he's still active.
The taxonomy section needs info about classification. What are it's relatives, when did it evolve, etc.

Done

By the way, have you read and solved issues brought up during previous GANs and reviews? Seems a lot of the article was plagiarised, which may still be a problem for some of the other mamba articles, written during various school projects, a practice which has rarely brouht anything good... FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read through the previous GA reviews yet, but I have read through the previous copyright concerns with this article. It seems they were mostly removed by Moonriddengirl. Where I have borrowed and attributed content from the other mamba articles (and I have done so sparingly), I have also imported the refs and have checked the source to ensure the article text wasn't just plagiarised. I also purchased some cheap copies of the main books used used here (FitzSimons, Branch, Marais) and can find no plagiarism from there. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's always good to read through old GAN/Rs, especially with articles that have been demoted as many times as this one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common names of animals mentioned should be added next to the scientific names.

Done

You have a long explanation for the genus name, which is shared by many other relatives, but not the species name, which would be more relevant here, since you say "Although its scientific name seems to be indicative of tree climbing".

Done

There is no info on relationships with other members of the genus, and of potential subspecies.

I've added info on subspecies. Non of the sources really seem to go into detail about its relationship with other snakes in the genus. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "graceful" and "extremely" may be a bit too loaded.

I've changed "extreme agility" to "great agility". Not really sure why "Graceful" is problematical. It's excatly the term used by FitzSimons. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Some have speculated" and similar wording should not be used, in text attribution should be used.

Done

"Besides the relatively high speed with which it moves, the black mamba is extremely dextrous, even while moving." No source.

Fixed I've removed that line

"Pienaar was also featured on the I'm Alive TV series (season one, episode 8 "Last Man Standing")." No source/irrelevant.

Fixed Also removed

"In an experiment, the death time of a mouse after subcutaneous injection of some toxins studied is around 7 minutes." This sentence reads rather badly.

Fixed

"One herpetologist" Again, name him, too hand wavy.

Done

Different names for hyraxes are used in the intro than in the article.

Fixed

Fixes are looking good, have requested a second opinion on medical aspects. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On the subject of medical aspects, I've rewritten that area with a new source. The original was not my work and I noticed that the source most of it hinged on was broken. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool you added the photo of the wrestling males, I was about to do it myself... A few more comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not long after, he collapsed and died of a heart attack, nearly an hour after being bitten." Not long after should be redundant as you give a more specific span at the end of the sentence.

Done

Not sure if hammering in that the genus name does not reflect the behaviour of this species should be done so much, as it apparently refers to the behaviour of other members of the genus which are more arboreal. This should probably be explained,if present in sources.

I've rewritten the 'habitat' section to tone this down, but I'm not happy with the prose. I feel it appropriate to explain the genus name in the taxonomy section. I haven't touched the reference to it in the lede yet. Basically, the sources that discuss this aspect all agree that the black mamba is more terrestrial than arboreal, but some suggest it is "equally" at home in the trees and one suggests that juveniles prefer the treeline until reaching maturity, but I feel this is dubious, so I haven't mentioned it. In short, I'm a bit unsure about how to word this aspect of its behaviour. Thoughts? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'd remove it from the lead, and make clear that the genus contains several species, which the article kind of underplays. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit solve these concerns? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I insist on waiting for a second opinion on medical aspects because an article like this may potentially save lives, or the opposite if incorrect. Had a similar issue with jack jumper ant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Oh, absolutely. I quite understand. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

The very old sourcing in the "Venom" section, relative to WP:MEDRS, concerns me. A search of PubMed for "black mamba venom", restricting results to "reviews", yields nine sources. I suggest a google scholar or Pubmed search (here) for reviews will reveal newer and perhaps better sources. I would help, but I don't have access to full journal articles. Sasata or Casliber may be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't have access to full text of most journals, but I've found this, this, this, and this one in particular seems helpful. There's plenty more available to anyone who has better journal access than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, very helpful. I'll take a look at these and rework this. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion! FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome-- unwatching now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I've reworked the section concerned with some of the sources Sandy found. Please let me know your thoughts? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing "proximal to the bite site is likely to be possible". Is it necessary to have both likely and possible? Seems redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this image[1] would be interesting to add somewhere, perhaps under venom.

Good ideas, both

Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very nice, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]