Talk:Black-necked spitting cobra

Requested move

Naja Nigricollis → Naja nigricollis — The species name should not be capitalized, only the genus name. Therefore the n in nigricollis should not be capitalized the way that it is currently. Mwherrr (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

N. nigricincta

Naja nigricincta is regarded as a full species now. (See: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2007, volume 45, pages 437-453) 93.129.94.251 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Correctly, and the picture illustrating the artikel is incorrect. It depicts a Forest Cobra "Naja melanoleuca" not a Naja nigricollis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.132.191.234 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naja nigricollis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I will be reviewing this shortly.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria. I'll keep it on hold for a week to see of we can't find some pics

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are good

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Needs better pics

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

OK, I am going to go ahead and pass it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

sources needed

Under venom

• "This snake is potentially lethal and has been responsible for numerous human fatalities."
• This seems to contradict some of the other sources, as well

Under behavior "It is preyed upon by numerous species of predatory bird, such as the secretary bird. Naja nigricollis is an occasional target of different species of Mongoose, which uses its speed, reflexes and partial immunity to the snake's venom to attack and kill the snake." *This entire para is attributed to Sprawls and Branch and it is not mentioned in the book. Meerkats vs the Cape cobra is mentioned in there, but nothing regarding a mongoose and this one. Neither is the Secretary bird mentioned in that book.

Under habitat

• Everything down to the improperly formatted citations reads very similar to this: [1]

This last piece should have been addressed before coming to GA.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to just re-write it in my own words? Yes, that is where the information came from. Bastian (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoah! Well at least you're honest about it. Definitely rewrite it in your own words. Close paraphrasing is a serious violation on here. If you want to use that paper as a source, that's fine, but you need to cite it as well. If someone like me could spot that, someone higher up the food chain will, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to look at it now, go ahead. I changed it into my own words and added another source. Bastian (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to supply the page numbers for your sources, particularly Branch and Sprawls. Like I said, that book does not mention meerkats and this species of cobra interacting at all and that page number is not 192, that's how many pages are in the book.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to clean this up too: (Luiselli, 2001). If you have access to Luiselli and are citing it, then format it the way the other citations are formatted. If you are citing that girl from San Jose's undergrad herpetology paper, then cite her citing are citing Luiselli. Do you really think a paper like that is a good source for this article? Can you find anything better? Remember, wiki articles are only as good as their sources. A published book, like Mehrtens or one of Branch's other books might be better than some college kid's term paper.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a snake guru, I can tell you that that girls article is a great paper with reputable sources. It is why I used it. I usually don't use things like that, but I did. I am going to take out the whole thing about predators because the book doesn't list it, you are right. However, it is common knowledge that mongoose are any cobra's worst enemy, even the King cobras are taken by mongoose species in Asia. Anyhow, I found a San Diego zoo cobra facts, which I put up that states cobra's are commonly taken by mongoose but I am going to take that out all together. I will take out the (Luiselli, 2001). Bastian (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's good, but keep in mind for this and any other article you write or improve...the higher it goes, the more scrutiny it will get. It just takes one shitheel to trash your source to get the article whacked. On your other point. What you or I take as common knowledge,is not what wiki is about. It's the sources. I raised albino monocole cobras, gaboons and a few other hot guys for years. The only thing that matters as far as that goes on wiki is what I've had published. Heck, you read enough reptile books published for the masses and you'll find stuff that is wrong, but plenty of people use as source material. Look at it this way, say we leave it in, the article passes without it and a few months from now goes for A class or Featured and some twerp challenges it. It makes you look bad as the editor and me look bad as the reviewer. As a side note, there are some interesting papers in google scholar about these guys and their venom [2], you might even find what you need on habitat, predators, etc if you go through them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice man, I really appreciate it. I put in a lot of hard work on the black mamba article. I've tried to improve some others aswell. I myself keep two eastern green mambas, a forest cobra, and different species of python (I want one of these though, a nice all black naja nigricollis). I started by first keeping a few different species of coral snakes as hots and went on from there to the forest cobra and then the mambas. I don't think I'm ready yet for a black mamba. I studied herpetology, but never really kept snakes until a few years ago. Started with the pythons, then to the corals. But I get what you mean about the article, though I doubt this will ever go to be a featured article or anything. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian also, so...If you are going to pass it, great but if not then that's okay too. :) Bastian (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

break

Well, let's work on getting this up to GA standards. Look at every article you write, especially about animals, as a potential Featured Article. We have the basics in here. Expand the kede section as a summary if the article. How about something on the subspecies, who described them, what year, etc. Remember as somewhat of an authority on the topic, you will have a lot of information in your head that you may expect the reader to know. Assume this is a 12 year-old hearing about spitting cobras for the first time. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I'm going to try to work and make do with what little actual sources that talk broadly of this particular species and its subspecies to make this article work. Thanks for the advice, again. Bastian (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of date

Per pre-GA review post above. It seems the subspecies included here are now currently being treated as a separate species Naja nigricincta (with two subspecies - the nominate and N. n. woodi).

I've added a single sentence in the taxonomy section for now using sources from our article on Naja, but I believe ultimately, they must be excised and transferred. Sources used:

• Wüster, W., S. Crookes, I. Ineich, Y. Mane, C.E. Pook, J.-F. Trape & D.G.Broadley (2007) "The phylogeny of cobras inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences: evolution of venom spitting and the phylogeography of the African spitting cobras (Serpentes: Elapidae: Naja nigricollis complex)". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 45: 437-453.
• Naja nigricincta at the Reptarium.cz Reptile Database. Accessed 29 December 2008.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and reduce the "Taxonomy" section because a new page was created for the new species, Naja nigricincta. LAx33 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. Wiki uses a different standard for recognizing species/subspecies, (ITIS) it should be on the reptile/amphibian project page...I've been whacked for doing what you are proposing. Even if you don't, that lede needs to be unfucked so it accurately summarizes the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ReptileDB is the closest you can get to an authoritative taxonomical checklist when it comes to snakes. ITIS is actually not very reliable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but got kicked in the yarbles over that in the past. Hmmm, I can't seem to find the ITIS thing on the project page, so maybe it was changed since then. That might be something for the project to hash out. If you feel confident with that as the benchmark I have no objections, but the lede in this piece does need to be expanded to summarize the article. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ITIS is more of an aggregator, and being generalist, it doesn't really check synonymies or update taxonomies that diligently. It's more often than not reliable, but also often out-of-date. It's best to use specialist sources when it comes to this I guess. Anyway, I've rebuilt the lead, feel free to tweak if needed.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice job on the lede.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also updated the rangemap to remove N. nigricincta. Should be good enough now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong cover photo

The current cover photo depicts a black (?Moroccan) Naja haje, not Naja nigricollis - note the row of subocular scales, and the high 3rd supraocular scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo now removed. Caissaca (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

naja nigricollis woodi

my own experience at herpetofauna.uk european species Churchfield62 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black-necked spitting cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425063515/http://devenomized.com/libraries/elapids/Black-neck_Spitting.pdf to http://devenomized.com/libraries/elapids/Black-neck_Spitting.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111140858/http://www.biodiversityexplorer.org/reptiles/squamata/serpentes/elapidae/Naja_nigricollis.htm to http://www.biodiversityexplorer.org/reptiles/squamata/serpentes/elapidae/naja_nigricollis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black-necked spitting cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/SPITTINGCobras.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201062634/http://www.seanthomas.net/oldsite/ld50tot.html to http://www.seanthomas.net/oldsite/ld50tot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)