Talk:Black mamba/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

As SandyGeorgia pointed out a month ago, the prose is not up to GA standard.

1. The lead is too short for an article of this length.
2. Redundancy is sprinkled throughout. Examples: "thoroughly inspect" "It will actively defend its territory very aggressively." "cornered with no escape"
3. The tone is too informal for an encyclopedia. Contractions are used throughout and there is frequent editorializing. ("but of course none of these are confirmed or verified by scientists using scientific methods" "Another problem which this species faces is human persecution", etc.)

Additionally, the images need to be reassessed for placement and copyright status (at least two are not free). Danger ^{High voltage!} 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I just read this (very informative) article and agree that repetition and redundancy is rampant. I would tackle it, but it would probably be better done by someone more familiar with the field. Rich Farmbrough, 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

• The lead talks about the snake being most venmous and in the top ten - this should be simplified to only make one claim

It is not the most venomous snake in the world (that title belongs to inland taipan) but may be in the top 10 according to Venomous snake its up there with the best (its got some good references). ZooPro 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The lead talks about "unprovoked attacks" and "attacks when cornered" - a difference of view that is repeated throughout the article.
• The ref link to Amazon and the ASIN should be replaced with World Cat/OCLC entities if possible.
• Description "The species is the second longest venomous snake in the world, exceeded in length only by the king cobra." - yet hte lead says longest.
• Predators "Very large specimens of this species (10 feet and up) have only humans to fear as even many birds of prey won't go after such specimens, preferring smaller sized snakes." - units, clarity "Black mambas larger than about 10 feet (3.0 m) have only humans to fear as the birds of prey will not attack them."

Rich Farmbrough, 04:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

I'll help out if I can, I have experience in this fieldnd was mentoringBas, until he was blocked for being a sock. Frankly, the entire predator section should go. Mambas are at the top of the food chain where they live. Neonates may fall prey to mongoose, meerkat or eagle, but their only real enemy is man, and that is usually out of fear of being bitten and is covered elsewhere in the article. All that section really goes into is the mongoose and other snakes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame about the nominator being blocked, and some of the concerns about the previous editor VeronicaPR suggests the whole page needs close checking. I am becoming more interested in snake articles recently but my knowledge is not great either. My free time is highly unpredictable and I will check and help out if I can, but can't promise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a decent article but it just needs a little tweeking. It would be a shame if it was delisted. It's well sourced, contains no original research. It's broad in its coverage, it's neutral and unbiased. Images are relevant to the topic and all are tagged with proper licenses. The prose is the biggest issue and I believe a little group effort put in and we'll have this article in shape in no time. There are some other issues with the article but nothing that can't be corrected or re-written. Rich, the lead claims that it is the "longest venomous snake in Africa" and in the body it specifies that "it is the second longest in the world, after the king cobra". RedGKS talk contribs. 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO there are far too many photos. The article only really needs one photo that shows "this is what a BM looks like". Additional photos should be used to illustrate specific features, otherwise they are simply redundant "hey look one of my pics is on WP" ego trips. Roger (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

::I don't think there are too many pics. Look at some other snake GA status articles and they have tons of pics (ie. Vipera berus, Russell's viper, Agkistrodon piscivorus, etc). The lead photo is absolutely perfect. Under "Description" there is one photo of a black mamba which shows its body and coloration - appropriate IMO. There's a photo under the section "Distribution, habitat, and status" which I think is appropriate for the section. Then there's a photo of a black mamba feeding under "Hunting and prey" which is also appropriate. The last picture is under the "Venom" section showing a black mamba striking and again I think that photo is appropriate. The gallery shows other pictures of the snake in different postures and these different photos also show the variation in the coloration of the black mamba. What we have now as far as pics go is okay, anymore pics and it just becomes redundant. RedGKS talk contribs. 15:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In general we discourage galleries unless for a very specific use (that's what commons is for and we should be promoting that). The gallery here looks a little indiscriminate and I'd lose it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can now go ahead and discard images that don't add anything meaningful to the article. If anyone has substantive objections please make them known. Roger (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, comprehensiveness issues....

• check taxonomy, possibly more to go in here on relationships, geographic variation etc.
• description looks ok at first glance - maybe need to find info on moulting?
• probably needs a section on folklore. I have no idea whether there is a significant body of material on this.

Not sure about sourcing etc. Will check as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How goes the reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Some confusing claims on the article

Hi! I’ve few questions concerning about some statements on the venom and behavior section.

Two websites were cited to support the sentences “To illustrate how toxic the venom of this species …This is the only scientifically verified case of an adult elephant dying of a snakebite.” But it seems that no such information is given on these citations: this website only has a statement “…who lies dying from a snake bite.”(3rd paragraph). I think a more sound and exhaustive reference is needed.

Moreover, it is claimed that "black mambas have been witnessed confronting, biting, and subsequently killing lions and other large predators" (on the behavior section) and a book was cited. Yet,can someone give more details for reference (like a scan of the book or e-book)?

I think verifiable references are needed to support statements on a scientific article and if no exhaustive source can be given, the sentences should be removed in order to improve the quality of the article.

I've added the contents above on the discussion page of the article. You can refer to that page for details.

Cheers!

Toxic Walker (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Look, I have no time to help out here, and the GA promoter is currently not allowed to edit, so I think we need to delist this GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A book is a perfectly acceptable source. The Verifiability policy does not require the source to be online or even freely accessible. You could try your local library if you wish to read the cited book. Roger (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delisted Apologies that this took so long; I found the instructions at GAR somewhat confusing. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 18:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)