Talk:Cape cobra/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine. Review to come soon. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are a few issues with this article that will really need to be resolved before the article is ready for GA status.
 * Yes check.svg Done*The lead is far too short. Per the guidelines on leads, it should summarise the rest of the article.
 * Yes check.svg Done*The second paragraph of the first section is unreferenced, and I'm not sure how relevant it is. Also, there are a very large number of synonyms; is there nothing interesting to be said about them?
 * Yes check.svg Done*Could the description be shuffled a little so that the long specimens are mentioned together, with the male/female discrepency mentioned with the average length?
 * Yes check.svg Done*"Their colouration varies greatly. This species shows a wide range of colour variation" Repetition
 * Yes check.svg Done*I'm sure the scalation is important information, but could it be presented differently? In more accessible prose or in a table, perhaps?
 * Yes check.svg Done*Distribution- could South Africa be mentioned on the first line? Also, check your linking.
 * Yes check.svg Done*"is fynbos, bushveld, karoo scrubland, arid savanna, and the Namib desert" Consider linking technical terms/jargon, and the Namib desert is a locality, not a habitat.
 * Yes check.svg Done*Seems to be an inconsistency as to whether you are talking about "them" or "it". I'd recommend the latter, but vary it by referring to the species by name or as "the species".
 * Yes check.svg Done*"when disturbed this snake will readily face its enemy, and spread a broad, impressive hood." Tone doesn't feel right
 * Yes check.svg Done*Puff adder is a dablink. Also, is the capital "P" needed?
 * Yes check.svg Done*"P. rhombeatus" Link? Spell out the genus at first mention.
 * Yes check.svg Done*"Sociable Weaver (Philetairus socius)" Link?
 * Yes check.svg Done*You could consider having "Behaviour" and "Ecology", rather than "Behaviour and diet" and "Predators"
 * Yes check.svg Done*Be consistent with regards to capitalising/not capitalising the common names of birds
 * Yes check.svg Done*"Enemies" really isn't appropriate
 * Yes check.svg Done*"Gestation period was approximately 42 days and the incubation period was 65-70 days at about 28-33°C (82.4-91.4°F). Clutch size was 11-14 (n=2) and hatchling ratio was one male to five females." Too listy


 * "The Cape cobras venom is made up of potent postsynaptic neurotoxins and might also contain cardiotoxins,[12] that affect the respiratory system, nervous system, and the heart. The mouse SC LD50 for this species' venom is 0.72 mg/kg.[13] The average venom yield per bite is 100 to 150 mg according to Minton." A little technical, not so well written

The source formatting is off, but I'll have a play with that myself soon. What makes The Reptile Database, Etymology Online, and Devenomized reliable? In an article like this, ideally, all the sources would be published books from reputable publishers and articles in peer-reviewed journals. Also, I'm not completely keen on the images- do we not have anything of more certain provenance?

Sorry if any of this comes across as over-critical, but the article isn't quite there yet. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * "Gestation period was approximately 42 days and the incubation period was 65-70 days at about 28-33°C (82.4-91.4°F). Clutch size was 11-14 (n=2) and hatchling ratio was one male to five females." Too listy
 * What do you mean by "too listy"? RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 17:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a block of data- not at all readable. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as the "synonyms" - no there isn't anything important enough about them to mention in the article. The synonyms list just makes the article more complete. Other GA status snake articles have them: Daboia, Naja nigricollis and black mamba. Also, I'm not sure what you'd like me to do with the venom section? I don't know how to make it less "technical" because we are dealing with raw numbers and that's technical. It lists the type of toxins, the median lethal dose and venom yield per bite. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 19:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Reptile Database is a very reliable source on reptile taxonomy, you could ask around or check it out yourself. It is considered by many to be more reliable than ITIS. Devenomized got all their information from A Complete Guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa by Johan Marais. I have the book myself, so I can quote the book instead of devenomized. I used devenomized only because reviewers can see it online but I am going to take it out. Etymology.com just gives you the etymology of a word, in this case it was nivea. I don't see why it is unreliable. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 19:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replacing devenomised with a book source would be best. Who maintains The Reptile Database? Is it run by genuine experts/a recognised group? As for Etymology.com, it shouldn't be a case of "I don't see why it's unreliable", but of you explaining why it is reliable. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Reptile Database (www.reptile-database.org) is maintained by herpetologist Peter Uetz with help from Jirí Hošek and all data comes from the Zoological Museum Hamburg (University of Hamburg - Biology department). If you go here you'll see that the Reptile Database is listed under herpetology. So basically it is maintained by the Biology dept. at the University of Hamburg. It is a source that is updated regularly and if you ask members of Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles, they will tell you it is a better source than ITIS. Peter Uetz and the Reptile Database are even referred to here on page 7 for "more information". You can go to the site [www.reptile-database.org here] and just see for yourself. As for etymology.com, it is a reliable source because the website gives where they got their information from over here. I think that is a very impressive list of sources which includes Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthausen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," and Kipfer and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang" and much, much more. Also, I replaced devenomized with the book source. So no more devenomized. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also changed the wording around in the "Reproduction" section so that it isn't just a block of data. I tried to make it sound a little less technical as best as I could. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As for this:
 * "The Cape cobras venom is made up of potent postsynaptic neurotoxins and might also contain cardiotoxins,[12] that affect the respiratory system, nervous system, and the heart. The mouse SC LD50 for this species' venom is 0.72 mg/kg.[13] The average venom yield per bite is 100 to 150 mg according to Minton." A little technical, not so well written

I'm at a loss as to how to word it or make it less technical. The snake has neurotoxic and cardiotoxic venom and it affects the mentioned systems. The median lethal dose is a number, so it kind of has to be a little technical. I followed the format of other GA status articles. They all list it in a similar way. RedGKS talk ★ contribs. 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm taking so long to get back to you, I've got a lot going on at the moment. I'll try and give this another solid going through this weekend, or perhaps tomorrow- it's certainly improved! J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As the nominator has been blocked as a sock, and as per my notice on the appropriate WikiProject talk page, I am now closing this review as failed. While there have been improvements, there is still a lot to do, and with no one readily available to work on the article, this is not going to pass. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorrry!
I did a couple of minor edits of wording and grammar, but mixed up the edit summaries, so anyone checking on them might be puzzled. No big deal though; as far as I am concerned the edits stand. JonRichfield (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)