Wikipedia:Peer review/Black mamba/archive2

Black mamba

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review as we've had to completely overhaul it after it had copyvios and misrepresentation of sources. I am not used to articles with lots of input from other editors so felt to be safe it was worth listing here first for a prose and comprehensiveness lookover...

Thanks, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

I'll have a look soon. Since I already GA reviewed it, I probably won't have too much to say, so it would be good if others commented as well. Is the original GA nominator unresponsive? FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

orignal GA nominator has not edited in over a year. I figure if he logs on he'll see the black mamba page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The taxobox image always seems poor to me (glare, captive rather than wild animal), there must be something better on Commons or Flickr? Looking there myself, there might not...

I think snakes are harder than birds or plants to get cool photos of from the wild.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found File:Blackmamba7.jpg. LittleJerry (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, just too bad the res is so low... FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But does the low res matter if it is just used in taxobox? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but using Tinyeye[1], I found that it is used throughout the web in higher res, which is suspicious (the uploader also only has one upload and a suspicious name)... I'll nominate it for deletion and see what happens. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know about that tool. It's cool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably no reason to link both lumping and splitting, both redirect to the same article. Antivenom is also duplinked.

removed duplinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it has some significance in local cultures?

I did some cursory looking and was surprised nothing came up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"collected by Dr John Kirk, a naturalist who accompanied Dr David Livingstone" I was under the impression that such titles should not be included? And in any case, they were probably not the only ones of the people mentioned in the articles with such a title, so seems arbitrary to single them out.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"on the Second Zambesi expedition" Date?

dates added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A single specimen was one of many snake species collected" Does this have anything to do with the description of the species? Was it the type specimen?

yes and yes. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the meaning of the genus name was removed since the GA review, which I think was a bad move. Even if it is shared with other species, it could be explained here.

re-added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of the synonyms are discussed under taxonomy, I think the rest could too.

ummm...no. all the different name combinations are mentioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The black mamba lies within the elapid genus Dendroaspis." This should not be mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph of taxonomy.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the genetic study say anything on divergence time?

unfortunately not Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"is a proteroglyphous" Explain.

added plain english in parentheses Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Mongooses, which have some immunity to the venom" Any particular species? Mongooses are a hue group...

No species mentioned. Mongooses as a group are known to tackle venomous snakes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not all of them are native to the mamba's range, anyway, nothing to do if the source doesn't specify. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if more of the symptoms should be linked. They are not all common terms (I don't know what either fasciculations or ataxia are, for example), and making info on them easier accessible could help out if someone has been bitten and looks at the Wikipedia page for info... There are also other technical terms in the section that could need links.

I have linked a few. Happy to link more if needed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"survived the bite of a black mamba without antivenom in 1998" But why did they not give him antivenom?

I dunno. On thinking about it, I have removed the section. The victim is not notable and there is nothing unusual about the story - it is not historical nor unusual Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Firstly, it was not my time to go." Is this personal musing really relevant in an article about the snake?

I have pondered whether this one case is worth keeping or removing....sounds like you'd lean towards removing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pharmaceutical applications" I'm a bit unsure what this section is trying to say and why it isn't part of one of the two preceding sections. Is it about how parts of the venom can be used? That isn't stated specifically. And is it in use?

I will do some more investigating on that one. In two minds - it is a separate novel usage for a part of the venom, yet I don't think it has entered any commercial production or clinical use Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated it into main body of venom with other compounds as all it is saying is they have the anagesic property and may lead to a new class of analgesics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reported bite cases" only has a single case, so I wonder if the section should be renamed to something more specific.

true. might be removing it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could warrant a sentence, but that whole section with quotes and all seems to be undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"longest species of venomous snake indigenous to the African continent" Only specifically stated in intro.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Over suitable surfaces, it is possibly the fastest species of snake, capable of at least 11 km/h (6.8 mph) over short distances." Only state in intro, and seems to contradict this form the article body: "The black mamba's reputed speed has also been exaggerated. It can slither at no more than 16 km/h (9.9 mph).[14]". In any case, should be consolidated, so that there is not unique info each place.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"spreads its narrow neck-flap" You call it a hood in the article body.

Same thing?

They are the same thing,m yes, but you should be consistent in how you refer to it from the intro to the article body, to avoid confusion. There should not be discrepancy between the two. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the black mamba usually attempts to flee from humans" only seems to be mentioned in the intro.

fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all from me, I only see one unaddressed point. I'm surprised I had so much to say to an article I already reviewed, but a lot can happen to an article in three years... FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been completely rewritten twice at least. Despite this I still encountered problematic remnants from the past Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me now. Perhaps best to leave this PR open, in the vain hope that someone else will comment too... FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a copyedit, I think we can close this. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Opabinia regalis to look at the venom material as she is knowledgeable in that area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing "The term "mamba" is derived from the Zulu word "imamba"" But what does that word mean? FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd like to know that too. Nothing came up first time I looked for it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Opabinia regalis

"First described by Albert Günther in 1864" - the taxonomy section points out that people living its native range had certainly described it earlier, but this detail gets lost in the lead - "formally described"? Maybe link species description?

agreed/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about snakes, just about some of their proteins, but I was surprised to read that they weigh only 3.5lbs. I just re-read red-bellied black snake this morning, and that article says an unusually long six-and-a-half-foot specimen was estimated at 22lbs. That's the bottom of the black mamba's length range, but it's six times lighter - it must be much thinner...? I see the text reflects the source, but it's a fact page from National Geographic that doesn't cite its sources, and I couldn't find a confirmation on a quick look - but maybe this is unsurprising to people who are are actually knowledgeable about the species?

I could believe it - look at this video of red-bellied black snake vs eastern brown snake. The former is so much stockier than the latter (this makes me feel safer as the latter is lethal). However, some better sourcing would be good and might shed light on it - the black mamba is really long Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm surprised that a really big red belly was "only" 22lbs! I don't see weight covered very often in other snake articles, but mulga snake says they're 6-12lb, so maybe 3.5lb isn't so unusual after all. I'm not planning to go pick up some snakes to test my bad intuitions... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says mongooses have some immunity to black mamba venom - is the mechanism known? (Is it literally "immunity", as in immune-mediated, or is it something else, like a difference in acetylcholine receptors preventing the usual inhibition by alpha-neurotoxins?) Do the other predators (Cape file snakes and birds of prey are mentioned) also have resistance to the venom?

The sources do not go into that much detail. LittleJerry (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like for mongooses it's a receptor variant, see e.g. here and more here. I'd call it "resistance" rather than "immunity" to avoid ambiguity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Should I put that both predatory birds and mongooses are resistant? LittleJerry (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source for birds, probably best to leave them alone for now. There are lots of known differences in the effects of neurotoxins on avian vs mammalian receptors, but those experiments almost all use chickens; I don't see anything for birds of prey. I hadn't noticed this before but looking again the source for the mongooses is a National Geographic article - that video is cool and definitely worth including, but I'd also supplement it with a citation to the literature. Turns out the molecular mechanism of mongoose resistance is pretty well characterized - I had no idea! On poking around more, I see other species that don't care about snake venom include the honey badger :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added cite. LittleJerry (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reproduction section says the breeding period runs from April to June. The venom section says "The peak period for deaths is the species' breeding season between September to February". Something's not right there - maybe these sources are talking about different parts of the range?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake - alpha-neurotoxins, cardiotoxins, and fasciculins are all different members of the three-finger toxin family; the current text makes it sound like only the alpha-neurotoxins are (admittedly a nitpick). I thought this paper was interesting - apparently black mambas have a much higher fraction of Kunitz-type toxins than other members of the genus. (The paper suggests this may be an adaptation to the dietary consequences of a more terrestrial vs arboreal lifestyle.)

that is a really cool paper! Have incorportated it and restructured Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that the venom doesn't contain proteases. It might also be interesting to note the very low PLA2 content?

agreed/mentioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth mentioning the snake's appearance in the WHO's list of medically important venomous snakes (WHO Guidelines for the Production, Control and Regulation of Snake Antivenom Immunoglobulins)

agreed/mentioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence on mambalgins seems a little stuck-on (maybe originally in another section?) Not having a resistance to naloxone and so on seems out of place here - we haven't said anything about opioids that would set the comparison in context. AFAIK there is no currently active effort to develop mambalgins for clinical use. Maybe just say their analgesic properties have attracted research interest and leave it at that.

agreed/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of the last paragraph about the LD50 makes it seem like it's talking about mambalgins, not venom :) Seems like that would flow better further up, maybe in the second paragraph where there's a mention of venom volume? Also, why give two different but very similar numbers?

I was trying to find some consensus/overview on the LD50 - these are the two numbers I have seen cited. Not sure how to change without introducing OR until I find out some more, or just phrase as "has been reported to be" and then the two figures. I was planning on moving it up too once I found out some more on the issue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe either write it as a range (e.g. "LD50 measurements range from 0.28<ref 1> to 0.32<ref 2> mg/kg") or round (e.g. "the LD50 is approximately 0.3 mg/kg")? Hard to feel too guilty about that, since these measurements are clearly consistent with each other. FWIW, there's a roundup of measurements here (cited in the Laustsen 2015 proteomics paper). Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

aargh. Now that has results all over the shop. I thought SC was the best apporximation to a snake bite and hence was thought to be the one to follow...yet most seem to be IV...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the 2018 reference - the sources all supporting the values already in the article are web sources or guidebooks, and it is not clear where the sources are coming from in many cases Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]