Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black mamba/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2019 [1].

Black mamba edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a fairly long and checquered history, having been listed thrice and delisted twice as a GA, found to have copyvios, and much of this was done by a now-banned user. Descpite the 3rd GA coming after the user's removal, it was interesting how some problematic residue was still left. Two of us have had a go at overhauling along with some helpful peer review comments. I also feel it is important to get articles that kids like to stick superlative facts in (eagles, most poisonous snakes, supergiant stars) at a "stable version" type level to deal with future arguments. We promise to fix any issues real pronto! Have at it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images appear to be appropriately used and licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I did it, but I did an image review as well and confirm all images are appropriately licensed. (sometimes I just want to review snake pictures, okay!?) Kees08 (Talk) 07:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx again! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit

linked to Asp (reptile) now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does "labials" mean? Is it just the snout? Why does Upper labials to eye say "4th (3rd and 4th)" 3rd and 4th what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just above is a link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales. hence they are scales along the lips. If we linked all the scales it'd be a sea of bluelinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments by Samsara edit

  • "It is diurnal and is known to prey on birds and small mammals, including hyrax and bushbabies." "Including" gives no sense of why the two species are mentioned. Are they particularly common prey items? Then say "especially" or the most suitable analogue. This is repeated later: "It mostly preys on birds, particularly nestlings and fledglings, and small mammals like rodents, bats, hyraxes and bushbabies." Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we perhaps writing from the perspective of the Northern world, for whom hyraxes and bushbabies are exciting, but birds, rodents and bats are considered mundane and not worth identifying to genus level? Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the scalation diagram, the link to where the notation is explained is vastly insufficient, as even the contents of the linked document do not put the reader in any position to understand the significance of the contents of the diagram, i.e. as it stands, it is data provided entirely free of context. E.g. are any of the numbers indicative of adaptations to particular habitats or ways of life? Do they in any way inform the taxonomic placement of the species? Etc. There need to be a few additional sentences to give any value to that section, for the lay reader. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes, scalation is often used as a distinguishing feature for snake species. I am trying to find a source to add this to article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC) damn that was hard! I found many many books that gave keys but nothing that specifically stated what was needed until I found a page from the South Australian Museum. Anyway, now added for context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may share its lair with other snake species, such as the Egyptian cobra." Knowing that the Egyptian cobra is ophiophagous, I feel there may be more explanation needed of how this relationship works. Later on, the converse problem surfaces: "They generally prefer warm-blooded prey but will also consume other snakes." Furthermore, "Young snakes have been recorded as prey of the Cape file snake." So, some kind of special truce with the cobra? Perhaps they are deadly to each other, and conflict typically results in both snakes dying? Would be nice if a source could be found with more details. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't find any information on this. Should I just remove mention of it? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say yes - it can always be added back later when a source has been found. Samsara 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During mating, the male will slither over the dorsal side of the female while flicking his tongue. The female will signal its readiness to mate by lifting its tail and staying still. The male will then coil itself around the posterior end of the female and align its tail ventrolaterally with the female's." Inconsistent style: "his tongue" for the male, but "its tail" for the female, and then back to "it" for the male - decide on one style, and follow it (I grew up with texts in which "it" was used consistently, but of course Attenborough does it the other way). I note that the first sentence may be felt to be ambiguous if "it" were used, so the sentence may have to be changed if "it" is preferred. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the adults, juvenile black mambas can be deadly." In many sources about snakes, this statement would be accompanied by the comment that young snakes, being less experienced, may strike more readily. If applicable to the black mamba, should probably be included. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is recorded to live up to 11 years, possibly longer." Isn't the intended meaning, "and may live longer"? Hopefully, there is no doubt about what maximum age was recorded. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. In a very well-documented case, a young British victim at the Southern African Wildlife College in the Kruger area died when the attempt was made to remove a black mamba that had come indoors. The victim reported having felt a very light touch on its leg correction: reported in the Telegraph as being on the hand, which turned out to have bite marks, and was convinced by teachers that it must have been a dry bite. Now that I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if this case should be covered since it received a fair amount of news coverage. [2][3][4] It appears the relevant section was removed. The Daily Mail and Mirror sources should be replaced with those given above, otherwise the section seems mostly well-written (we can talk about finer points down the line). For NPOV to be fulfilled, this or an equivalent section needs to be there. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • last night, by the time I got round to editing it was really late and I was tired - I wanted to read and digest. We have been in two minds about this material and decided to remove it, but do not feel strongly and am happy to see included if you feel it improves the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed a dubious bit (I don't reckon he would have survived an arterial bleed without medical attention!). Thanks for ferreting out better refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The peak period for deaths is the species' breeding season, during which black mambas are most irritable." Probably wouldn't hurt to repeat the month range from over half a dozen paragraphs up. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earlier version I referred to also seems to have rather different LD50 estimates. I wonder how there can be such a discrepancy. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of those old ones, such as intraperitoneal, are rarely used or cited. Others on that page had unclear sources, which I trawled through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now also wondering about the difference between the current phrasing "Bites were very often fatal before antivenom was widely available" and the earlier one, "before antivenom was widely available, the mortality rate from a bite was nearly 100%". Which version is true to the cited source? It seems the earlier cited statistic of 7 out of 7 black mamba bites being fatal is consistent with the "nearly 100%" figure. The relevant paragraph from the originally used source reads: "Before the advent of black mamba antivenin, a bite from this fearsome serpent was 100 percent fatal, usually within about 20 minutes. Unfortunately, antivenin is still not widely available in the rural parts of the mamba’s range, and mamba-related deaths remain frequent." Selection of sources should be NPOV, as should the resulting text. The new source used in the text is behind a pay-wall for me for the next few weeks at least, and the abstract does not seem to reflect the relevant section. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, there is a full-text available here to look at. If you scroll down to line 99, you get "Bites from D. polylepis are reported to have a very high fatality rate if the victim is not treated ". I am wary of saying 100% fatal on the basis of 7 /7 deaths as the older version had. "nearly 100%" is not right as it possibly is 100%. "very often" I tried as meaning "almost always". Anyway, I am open to suggestion here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Casliber: Pinging just to make sure the below is noticed. Samsara 02:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps if you mean "almost always", it is best to write "almost always". Samsara 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos on the molecular details. Those two paragraphs are very interesting and well written. My perception of them may be biased. Samsara 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say in closing that when I decided to look at this article, I was not expecting to have to extensively write on the subject of how venomous one of the most venomous snakes is. The LD50 value and typical envenomation doses alone do not really leave much room for doubt there, and I wonder how the tone of the article with respect to this point could change so much over time. One of the FA criteria is stability, and I hope there are no serious concerns to be had about this. To be clear about this, I hope to be convinced that we can arrive at a version that is not going to leave this article a battleground between snake apologists on the one hand, and those wishing to sensationalise on the other. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • this article was a battleground for several years and owned by a now-banned sockpuppetteer (e.g. see Talk:Black_mamba/Archive_2 for big argument about LD50 which spilled over into ANI) who loved flowery speech and argued in support of some dubious sourcing, and had some wild claims I took on this page as I was curious about how difficult it would be to polish the article after this period. It has been a real effort to go over everything (much more onerous than I expected) and some of the old edits might still exist in the article. Making matters more difficult is the issue of the LD50 - they vary by route (SC vs IV) and whether total toxin or elements are used. Trying to unravel sources and where the information came from originally has been one of the biggest challenges of getting this article to this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, anything more? LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See new section below. Samsara 01:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack edit

  • First formally described by Albert Günther in 1864 – not a complete sentence.
dunno how that happened, tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who spelt the name Dendraspis polylepis. – Using the word "spell" is a bit irritating. Better use "erected the species" or something similar. Currently it gives the impression as if the original scientific name would have had a typo.
ok the problem is that it is an orthographical variant to how it is spelt now (somebody added an 'o'), which is why I used 'spelt' instead of 'erected'. Am still musing on this and best way to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "mamba" is derived from the Zulu word "imamba". – But what does this word mean? Is it just the name for the snake? If yes, it could be stated for clarity.
I can't find any information other than that given. It seems to be just the name for the snake, but no source clarifies it one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that had been killed by Italian explorer – We usually say "collected" instead of "killed".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was subsequently regarded as a subspecies and is no longer held to be distinct. – Unclear: Is it now regarded as a subspecies, or is the subspecies no longer thought to be distinct?
the latter - a valid subspecies is still distinct, just less so than a species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on subspecies? If there are none, I would still mention this fact.
none are recognised as valid. Will think how to get this in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tail of the species is long and thin, making up 17–25% of its body length. Maybe it helps to add how the tail is defined in a snake? Not apparent to everybody.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given its length: Maybe vertebral count would be interesting to know?
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black mambas weigh about 1.6 kg (3.5 lb) on average. – Since it is a common feature in snakes and very relevant for its reproduction biology: Is there sexual size dimorphism? Or any other differences between sexes? If they are equal, this fact deserves mention.
No mention of that anywhere. In fact I could only find one source mentioning weight at all. One should assume they are similar size if not stated overwise. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of text in the scalation section would be nice. E.g., what about the size of the scales? The second part of the species name indicates that there is a unusually high number of scales?
sigh....nothing coming up....will keep looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rival males compete by wrestling; attempting – use comma here instead of colon?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of more than 900 bites – This is referring to the previous sentence, and could be formulated as such (e.g., "Of the more than 900 bites …").
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a pity that sources do not reveal more on the description. I give my support now for the well-written article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

Not my area of expertise, but snakes are interesting...

  • Suggest turning abbreviations off in the convert template, at least for first use.
ok, done at first mention...not too keen on this but not strongly opposed so happy to go with flow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species is both terrestrial and arboreal This article is likely to be of interest to a lot of non-expert readers, including children and non-native speakers (and people looking it up because it was mentioned in Grey's Anatomy), so maybe explain those terms in brackets, at least in the lead.
added in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danie Pienaar, now head of "now" is discouraged by the MoS because it goes out of date quickly
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that up a bit. He is still listed as head of science right now (i.e. "2019" in article text),[1][2] but as has been said, that document is undated and will be updated with a new person at some, perhaps distant, point in the future. Unfortunately, even a feature on him in the Independent[3] does not indicate the year of his appointment. Samsara 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • survived the bite of a black mamba without antivenom in 1998. Although no antivenom was administered redundancy
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "moderate" black mamba envenomation You can probably lose the name; we wouldn't be talking about any other snake in this context. Also, what precisely was moderate? Does that refer to the amount of venom or something else?
trimmed...it generally means (presumptively) less venom as the symptoms presumably are less systemic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot to criticise, but noting that I've only really looked at the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. This looks comprehensive and well-written to my non-expert eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific_new/savannah_arid/research_staff/default.php
  2. ^ https://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/organogram/
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/africa/kruger-lions-escaped-south-africa-can-they-kill-humans-in-city-pretoria-scientist-danie-pienaar-a7810086.html

The range map edit

Featured article candidates/Black mamba/archive1 is located in Africa
Featured article candidates/Black mamba/archive1
class=notpageimage|
Distribution of black mamba in Africa
  • I just noticed the issue with the range map, and then saw that it was posted on the talk page. May I endorse the enthusiasm to resolve this issue? Various maps do circulate, such as [5] and a roughly similar Wikimedia one , one here which got made into the one on the right ->
Then there's one from the Beeb that's based on WWF Wildfinder data, described here and downloadable in a GIS format here, since they discontinued web access to it.
Points of agreement among the maps seem to be the exclusion of Ivory and Skeleton coasts and the Cape region. Beyond that, depending which map you believe, almost all of sub-Saharan Africa is covered. Of the Western part of the range, Citizendium writes "may or may not occur here", while the Commons file description says, "possible range in Western and Central Africa". I propose an expedition. Samsara 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted the issue, a nice person made the map based on IUCN and added it. The old map lacked any range marked in west Africa. There are significant reasons why I'd not trust the citizendium one. The IUCN is possibly the most reliable source out of rhe ones mentioned. The toxinology one I had contemplated using and was flip-flopping until someone did the IUCN one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I thought the issues were understood. The text notes range in the Congo (DRC) and "south-western Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia". However, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan are not labelled as range on the map, nor is the DRC. That's to say as much as half of the range indicated in the text may be missing in the map. This mismatch needs to be resolved. Samsara 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor additional point: Burundi is also mentioned in the text, but skipped on the map. Samsara 23:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised the toxinology one had been made into a map. That is certainly better....will substituteCas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Errr.....how do I get the map and overlay into the taxobox then....gotta run IRL....back soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, kinda. It leaves behind an additional set of frame lines, but it doesn't bother me, personally. Samsara 06:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxobox looks a bit jarring to me now. The map is very broad, and expands the whole box to an extent where it looks unbalanced compared to the photo above. could the map be made smaller for balance? FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have shrunk it a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

  • German-British—German-born British is clearer
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not totally convinced by the scalation section, seems a bit over technical, and I'd be running too fast to count the scales. Your call though
The scalation is essential to diagnosing to species level often - like spore print, size and shape for mushrooms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the criterion for bite victims being notable the fact that they are white?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, let me try to answer that last one. The section afaik was not written by any of the current contributors. I suggested it be brought back because it had seemingly been removed without reason. Do you know of other bite cases for which we can find reliable sources? My concern after reflecting on this section is that it might give undue weight to survivors. Samsara 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
given the lethality of the bite, I reckon anyone who survives is significant. It is easy to forget that getting the antivenom is not so easy if bitten in a remote area far from transport etc. Littlejerry and I were really in two minds about keeping/removing individual bite victims. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a black female survivor at CBS and Huffington. I didn't think that section looked like the sort of thing that you or Jerry would write, but if it's to be kept, I think you should add this survivor to make it less about white males Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good find that, lots of important information there. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, I can't see anything else problematic, so I'll support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Samsara edit

  • I still feel like I want to read something about how the small scales are helping with some aspect of life history, like speed or mating... anything really that makes scalation read like something other than God's gift to taxonomists. Samsara 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anything about this in my travels through black mamba material...frustratingly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. Samsara 01:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah...I know....have to stick to sources... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The black mamba and honey badger overlap for much of their range, and this believable eyewitness account says the badger can take a black mamba as prey. The account is certainly consistent with the way honey badgers are widely reported to take cobras and puff adders. This article contains the quote, "An article written a few decades ago also shows evidence of researchers who injected enough black mamba venom into a honey badger that would have killed two oxen and it apparently had no adverse effects on the badger." Perhaps that paper can be found and added - it seems at least a reasonable suspicion that the justification for the described experiment would be that this actually happens in the wild, and that the paper would say so. Samsara 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) ok found and added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara? LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Opabinia edit

I reviewed this at peer review, so already got most of my nitpicks out of the way. Just a few points -

  • I wasn't quite sure how to interpret the range map until I got to the distribution section. I take it that brown-striped area represents the inconclusive observations in Senegal. I'm not sure how to decide the boundaries for that area if it's really based on such sparse reports, but in any case the map caption could mention that the red areas are confirmed and that the brown area is unconfirmed?
mentioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a ref missing/accidentally dropped in the second paragraph of the distribution section? The sentence about inappropriate antivenom doesn't seem related to the material about unconfirmed observations. The source at the end of the paragraph is dated 1983, which is fine for reporting 1950s observations but pretty old for which antivenoms get used where.
good point - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed cases of survival without antivenom are interesting (yeah, I see what you meant now about the systemic-bias issues - ie whose cases get reported in places we'd use as sources) but I feel like the individual examples are sort of imbalanced - there's a lot of little details (did Layton notice symptoms 20 minutes after the bite, or was it 30?) yet some medically significant details aren't described. For example, in Pienaar's case, he was bitten in South Africa, and apparently got advanced medical care - why didn't he get antivenom? Isn't the South African National Health Laboratory Service a major producer of antivenom? (I know the sources might not cover that, but it seems really strange.) The HuffPost citation for Adomo is a dead link (should be this one, right?) In the Laita case, is profuse bleeding that "pushes out" venom really a thing? In general, these all seem to be sourced to media reports rather than case reports in the medical literature - I know this is the notable bite cases section, but some of the medical details are pretty hazy. I see from the above comments that there's been some discussion about adding/expanding this section, and it's not a key point IMO, but personally I'd give it another editing pass now that it's been written to trim it back a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have given it a run though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that HuffPo article, I'm curious where they got the 30,000 annual sub-Saharan Africa snakebite deaths. Based on the 1957 to 1963 numbers from South Africa (the distribution of black mamba in SA is roughly representative of the distribution in sSA - black mamba absent in large parts of the country, but these also being much less densely populated, on average), I would then expect there to be about 10,000 deaths from black mambas annually. The HuffPo statement does roughly match the assertion in the other cited source, which gives ocellated carpet viper caused deaths as 20,000 annually, with black mamba listed as "runner up" without giving a number. Still, I feel we need to know and ought to be able to state whether it's 10,000, 5,000 or actually fewer than that. Sorry if I might be starting to sound like a barrel without bottom, but I really think we should be comprehensive on this point. Samsara 06:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put my finger on why this bugs me, but I'd trim the stuff about Layton to something like "he complained of blurred vision within an hour of the bite, and collapsed shortly thereafter[refs]" - there's no indication anywhere else in the article that these are significant differences in the timing of symptom onset, and it looks like the kind of minor detail that media reports are often inconsistent about. I'd also add some more in-text attribution to the Laita stuff - something about "snake photographer claims he was bitten, never sought treatment for this normally-fatal incident, and realized after the fact that he had photos of the snake in the act" seems enough like a PR/marketing story not to tell it quite so much in Wikipedia's voice.
Also agree that if there are good sources on the number of deaths, the article should indicate the number. (IIRC one of the papers I looked at for the venom stuff did have some numbers, though I can't remember which one - I can look later if that helps. I'd try to stick with the medical literature for that one, not media articles unless they cite their own sources.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
begun trimming notable bites more. I have felt uneasy about them and the comments are good. Agree some sort of census with some data on numbers of snakebites would be good...am knackered now as nearly 1am here. more tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I am finding only case reports and studies which don't examine numbers of each species bitten. all input appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis and Samsara: Furthermore, this paper is pretty scathing about the lack of research on the black mamba and snakebites in general in Africa. There is a Crisp 1985 paper that is used in Hodgson 1996 to note somehow numbers of deaths from mamba bites but I can't access it and it is only two pages long. All the literature appears to be mid 80s and older....sigh. Sadly I can't include what I can't find. I could use the Kenya case report (I guess) to highlight that literature is lacking...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few options that I haven't found the time to try:
  • Get access to the above-mentioned paper somehow so we know what it says
  • Contact the authors of the other sources to inquire what sources they were working off. The HuffPo author can be contacted through Twitter, the Reptiles Magazine writer is a book author for whom I haven't so far found direct contact details, but some of his publishers are listed here.
Samsara 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the African Snakebite Institute (Marais is the principal), tweeted the journalist (couldn't message her), and will get have sent a request for an interlibrary loan for the article, though it is only one page long so suspect it is just a case report. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's going the distance! Sorry I haven't gotten back to this, I've been really busy IRL... will take a look tomorrow to see if I can find the paper I was thinking of, though now that I think of it, it may have been that one you linked on the Kenyan case report. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no replies as yet. hence just have a think if there is anything else actionable I can do Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: the African Snakebite Institute (which has Marais as the director) wrote back and said, "Unfortunately there is no central supplier database that captures all the Black Mamba bites in Africa" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with a reliable source that makes a reasonable extrapolation - I think we knew before asking that not all African Black Mamba bites get logged - to suggest that such a thing would be possible at this point in time would be ludicrous (sorry if I'm offending anybody, but that seems close enough to a hard fact). This is why I suggested asking Jerry G. Walls - it seems likely to me that he was working off something in electing the black mamba the second worst African venomous snake. I think the key here is to actually find an answer to the question, not some reason for not answering it. If that was also your goal, I'm sorry you came back empty-handed. I'm happy to put some effort towards this, but my wiki time unfortunately will be coming in little chunks until the middle of the year. Samsara 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that maybe a reasonable extrapolation is also very very difficult. Johan Marais was one of the other authors, who heads the institute that just replied to me. I'll look for Walls. And if he gives his opinion...I can't really write pers. comm. can I though? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, my suggestion was always for sources, not pers. comm. Of course, as soon as he publishes it, it's a source. Samsara 23:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but I was fearful of some communication of data that was a personal observation rather than a reference to anything published for that very reason (i.e. that we could not use it). Just imagine I said that sentence with a wry and self-defeated smile. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
finding contact details for Jerry G. Walls is proving tricky. Given this was in this magazine, I thought he might be part of this but his absence here suggests not...and nothing is coming up on google Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have now been able to update with figures from a peer-reviewed paper rather than a guidebook. It now goes from 1953 to 1979 so some improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that new passage confusingly written. This may be an example of data that's better presented as a table. Samsara 11:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried rejigging. I realise I meant to put the Zim material further up and tried clarifying the pre/post 1962 thing. It'd be an odd table - with bits and pieces everywhere and not terribly gridlike. Also not sure how it would go with the flow of the prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's confusing even so. We're now bundling a number of factors together - (1) did they have symptoms of systemic envenomation, (2) were they "ill enough" to receive antivenom (more on that below), (3) did they receive antivenom, and (4) which one? Unexplained is why so many received (usually expensive) antivenom that had no effect. Was that unknown at the time? And why did so many make it through when receiving the ineffective antivenom, when the previous figure was 7/7 dying? That just seems really odd and conflicts with the general tenor of the article, which has been that a black mamba bite is nearly 100% fatal. To that effect, when you write, "15 people out of 35 ill enough to receive antivenom died", does that exclude people who died on the way to hospital, or where there was no intention to seek treatment? Is that also the case for the other antivenom figures? (I.e. are any declared dead on arrival and not given antivenom, not put on ventilators etc?) If so, I believe the phrase "ill enough" would need reconsidering, because those arriving alive at a hospital might be the mild cases. And if not, I'm just hugely confused at this point about how the discovery of two additional papers seems to have turned the article upside down. Samsara 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "100% fatal" material came from figures in a guidebook. Finally, we've found figures from some other papers (neither of which popped up on searches easily). It's still a very dangerous snake just not quite so lethal as the original contributor of the material. PS: You're right - the "ill enough to receive..." was me interpreting withiut evidence to back up that was what was meant. Now changed to reflect this. I don't see any contradictions now - it's still a highly venomous snake. I removed a "very" and can't see any other text which asserts a 100% mortality. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is the section of actual text (now refactored to remove "ill enough":
  • A survey of snakebites in South Africa from 1957 to 1979 recorded over 2553 venomous snakebites, with 75 confirmed as being from black mambas.
  • Of these 75 cases, 63 had symptoms of systemic envenomation and 21 died.
  • Those bitten before 1962 received a polyvalent venom that had no effect on black mamba venom, and 15 people out of 35 who received the antivenom died.
  • A mamba-specific antivenom was introduced in 1962, followed by a fully polyvalent antivenom in 1971. Over this period, 5 people out of 38 bitten by black mambas and given antivenom died
Do you still find this confusing? I will ping @Opabinia regalis: to offer an opinion too.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I have much to add literature wise. I think my only suggestion for the current version would be to add a line (probably citing the discussion material in that Kenyan case report) about the relatively scarce data on the subject, as context for why we're presenting fairly old and variable data. (I don't think the "7/7 deaths" was really generalizable, and these are better even if not the most recent sources, so I don't think it's turning anything upside-down so much as just a statictics-of-small-numbers problem, plus selection bias in what gets reported in more general sources.) Anyway, I don't think I have further comments and I expect to be on wiki pretty intermittently this week, so support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, much appreciated........until I sling the next snek up at FAC :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Dweller edit

  • I'm also puzzled by the map. I see areas of black, green, red and beige. No brown at all. I guess red is where it lives and beige is where it doesn't. Maybe the black is "brown". So what's the green? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    the person who made the map used an Africa map which had greener tinge for more vegetated areas and browner for less - the demarcate red patches are the range, and the brown in west africa is uncertain range Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reader needs the map explained without coming here. Or pull it. Or replace it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with this map I made on request[6]? FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. Just wasn't in the article when I made the comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more a question for the nominators, the map was replaced during the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: That discussion is on this page. Samsara 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this map issue is a big deal to me. We can't have an FA with an incomprehensible map. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN map is missing parts of the range. @Samsara: can the current rangemap be overlaid onto a plain map of Africa rather than one with tints for deserts and jungles? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Done, to a first approximation (colours and resolution are reasonably easy to change). Samsara 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! @Dweller: is this version better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I could quibble over the brown looking black but a) I know I'm not great with colours and b) even if I was right (and I refer you to 1) nobody reasonably intelligent would be overly confused by it. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the black mamba had been known to missionaries[4] and residents[5] before 1860" multiple issues. Citations should follow punctuation. "Residents" is a very odd choice of word. Locals? Indigenous population? The order of inclusion implies a colonialist attitude. And even mentioning missionaries is ridiculous. What year is the very very earliest any missionary might have arrived in the area, compared to the year a local person might have noticed a black mamba. To that point, 1860 seems several thousand years too late a date. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    actually now you put it like that, the whole sentence looks rather obvious (and lame). It'd be interesting if there were any interesting stories but we didn't find any. so removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dweller: @Casliber: I don't think there's any rule that punctuation has to be before a reference. It's only that if reference and punctuation are in the same place, there's a prescribed order. From Wikipedia:Citing sources: citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. (emphasis mine) So it only applies if the punctuation is already adjacent. References mid-sentence are perfectly fine as in that sentence. Samsara 19:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who spelt the name Dendraspis polylepis" The body text hasn't yet told us what the correct spelling is, so this is jarring. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is merely an orthographical variant, to make it less jarring I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does imamba in Zulu mean, or is it just the name of the snake in Zulu? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Several dictionaries give the translation simply as "mamba". It most likely means the black mamba specifically as none of the other species clearly overlap the current or traditional Zulu-speaking areas, at least if we're basing this on the current range of the snakes. Wiktionary additionally suggests that the same word exists in Xhosa. I'm not too hopeful that the derivation of this specific word has been the subject of a reliable source. Dictionaries of Zulu that I've seen have not included etymology. Samsara 19:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if the sources are silent, there's not much we can do --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section explains "mamba". The description says they're rarely black. One of the two sections ought to deal with why, given this, are they called black mambas. And if we don't know why, can we say that we don't know why? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say we don't know why as that'd be OR. All we know is what is written. I don't know if it is unknown or not Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scalation section includes lots of unexplained and unwikilinked technical terminology. This suggests to me that this is not encyclopedic content, but is scientific textbook territory. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on the Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales link it describes and illustrates the scales. Scale patterns, like spore prints in fungi and all sorts of other keys, are fundamental to describing a snake down to species level. All snake guidebooks discuss them. I'd link the scale types themselves but then I'd be linking bolded terms that are functioning as headings which MOS frowns upon...In other snake articles this segment has been a paragraph of prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "from to" structure of the paragraph of geographic distribution is very hard to follow, being especially confused by over proliferation of names. Either name all the countries or give us a from to structure, relying on the map for the rest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba's distribution contains gaps within the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria and Mali." I haven't a clue what this means. Do you mean that there's a sweep of territory it occupies, but there are gaps within that territory comprising those countries, and if so, is this a comprehensive list? Can we explain it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make sense to say first the type of places the snake lives in and then list the countries, because the former presumably explains the latter. --11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Distribution going before habitat is typical for animal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an estimated population number? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    sadly I haven't seen one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the wild, black mambas seldom tolerate humans approaching more closely than about 40 metres (130 ft)" I find it difficult to believe that a black mamba can detect a downwind human being at 40 metres, especially in a forest environment. I also take small issue with "tolerate" but I can't put my finger on why! I think it's because it implies it'll do something (expel the human, run away) when actually, won't it usually try to hide (and therefore tolerate the human presence) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source just states that and them describes what it does when threatened (fleeing and threating). LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do they swallow their prey whole like most snakes? (In case that seems like stating the obvious, the article does note they are oviparous) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image showing it swallowing prey. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe that's a serious response, is it? You can't rely on the image. First, and most importantly, it's not verifiable. And secondly, Creme Eggs made an entire ad campaign out of the notion that different individuals eat things differently. It's not an unreasonable question/inclusion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 2553 venomous snakebites" is odd. It's a very very specific number undermined by seemingly being unspecific. Go for 2,500 if it's not certain? And surely it's "more than", not "over". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno why I wrote that - it was a series of 2553 snakebite cases. period. "Over" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it'd make more sense to talk about venom more generally before delving into the numbers of affected/killed humans --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I sort of am in a different way. The flow is "it's really poisonous" --> "so poisonous that this many people have died"(i.e. general stuff about how dangerous it is) --> then more specific symptoms and signs --> then more specific components and toxins. I did muse on placing the deaths further down the section...but after which paragraph would I put it? At the bottom seems too far down.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Black mamba venom does not contain protease enzymes" Why would I expect it to? Pretty sure there are other things it also doesn't include, like Marmite and custard. Is this stated because other venoms commonly do? If so, say so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unlike many venomous snake species" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "severe course" Severe what? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    a severe course of envenoming. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unecessarily opaque technical language unrelieved by wikilink. Only 7,000 Ghits for the term. Why not replace "Early neurological symptoms that indicate a severe course of envenoming" with "Early neurological symptoms that indicate severe envenoming" or "a severe condition" or "a potentially severe case" or similar? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    trimmed as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We treat Bulbar palsy as a symptom, when it isn't. Try "and symptoms of bulbar palsy"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    its a set of diverse neurological symptoms - added "symptoms of" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "polyvalent" is jargon and needs some sort of explanation or wikilink --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    linked now - it's the standard word for an antivenom that works for more than one genus of snake Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " is used to treat black mamba bites from many localities" unintentionally implies that it doesn't work on bites from some places. Do you mean "in many"? Seems an odd commercial inclusion. Is it the only one available? Why is it only available in some places but not others. I'd consider deleting the whole section of text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why that qualifier is there. Removed now. Is important in the scheme of things as first polyvalent antivenom was ineffective against black mambas Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danie Pienaar does not appear to be notable, so why is his bite considered "notable"? There is an awful lot of text there about an incident that occurred to a non notable individual. Same objection for the other cases mentioned. Our article says that of 75 cases recorded only 21 died even in the days when useless antivenoms were being tried, so cases of survival shouldn't be remarkable per se, and neither should cases of death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion is split on the "notable victims" section. I flip-flopped in ruminating about it before removing it. Samsara preferred it in. All are notable in that they have been discussed in the media (as is evidenced by references). To me, Layton's case highlights the minimal local symptoms, which in his case proved fatal, Laita as he took a photo of it (links are interesting), the Kenya case because it really shows how isolated parts of Africa are. Pienaar probably has the weakest claim but he was the head of South African National Parks Scientific Services. The other thing to remember is that black mamba bites aren't that common really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the relevance of note a to the text it follows? Is it implying that being "a snake of medical importance" doesn't mean what I thought it did - I thought it meant that they make medicines from some aspect of the snake. The note implies it's given that status because of how venomous it is, although ironically the note diminishes that point. In any case, I think more/better explanation is given for "snake of medical importance" - could be a link to some text in a WHO article or add it to the note, if it's hard to be pithy --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add have added something as a footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's a typo in note b --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • query - is the venom administered through those fangs? Not mentioned. --21:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
All venomous snake use their fangs to inject venom. The sources I have appear to not feel the need to specify that the mamba does. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<-Update. Rude of me not to have begun with praise for the article, which is really really good. I still have big reservations around that map. I'll try to finish my review today/tomorrow. Thanks for all the responses. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's it, thanks for your patience and a very interesting article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to support when the issues have all been resolved. This is a corking article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • I carried out a series of spotchecks. Ref 28 supports the statement: "Bites are very rare outside Africa; snake handlers and enthusiasts are the usual victims". Source says "Although very rare in a European context..." and makes no mention of "snake handlers and enthusiasts". No other issues arise from my sample.
  • There are several mainly formatting and presentational issues:
  • Ref 8: should note source language is German
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: publisher location missing
Decided to remove locations for all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: ditto
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: returns the message: "Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for".
damn, wish I had archived that. oh well, folks can just go to abstract Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21: not clear as to the nature of the source
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Not sure if numbers changed - WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization - is WHO official body, FN 25 is Jerry G. Walls, who has written many books on this and similar topics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: publisher location missing
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: lacking publisher
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Ref 41: ditto
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: "BBC News" should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: Likewise for "strange behaviours"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the sources appear to be well chosen, and subject to the above meet the required quality and liability criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I think we're about there so, subject to my own walk through the article, I'd expect to promote before the day is out -- any outstanding concerns pls speak now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given this has been open seven weeks and the latest comments appear to have been addressed, I think it's time to promote and if there are any minor niggles remaining they can be dealt with post-promotion, and any discussion can take place on the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Black_mamba/archive1&oldid=888111645"