Talk:Eastern green mamba

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 04:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I am claiming this review. Just to start off, the article looks pretty good all round. I will start commenting by tomorrow. IJReid (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. It should take too long, I made sure it was as close to GA status before nominating it, --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 05:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Their mortality rate, however, is high;" these words are mentioned in the end of the previous sentence, so I suggest they are removed from one or the other.
• There are very few links throughout the lead. The lead should be linked when a word is (most of the time) linked in the article, although not too much.
• The taxonomy section is very short, could be expanded like the western green mamba's, and the first four words in it are "The western green mamba", should be "The eastern green mamba".
• Again, identification is not mentioned in the "Identification and Physical description section", should be removed.
• In Physical description, what is "This", should be "The eastern green mamba"
• Throughout the whole article, there are sections that have no links. In Scalation, words like dorsal should be linked. In Physical description, words like canthus and maxilla should be linked. If people might not know what it is, it shoud be linked.
• "Lifespan, longevity and aging" should be shortened to "lifespan"
• the "Reproduction" section should be part of "Lifespan", not the other way around.

More to come. IJReid (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No further queries, it was close to GA already. IJReid (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I left the whole "Reproduction" section as the main, with the "lifespan" subsection to it. I just don't think it would be right to have it the other way around. Also, I really cannot expand further on the "Taxonomy" section mainly because the phylogenetic relationships of the genus Dendroaspis are still a bit of a mystery. They are distinct from other elapids, like cobras (Naja spp, coral snakes, Australian elapids, kraits and all other elapids). The fangs of the members of the genus Dendroaspis are longer, and their fangs are semi-hinged (sort of like vipers and pit-vipers who have fully hinged fangs while all other elapids have very fixed immovable fangs), their venom delivery apparatus is far more advanced, all the components of their venom are synargestic and work together to produce an extremely virulent effect (whereas other elapid venoms are not - they are "anti-complimentary", which means that there are components within their venom compisition that work against the lethal toxins in their venom), etc. I tend to believe that the mambas are most closely related to the kraits and those of the genus Pseudohaje. There are studies that do link the three genera, but nothing is conclusive. Mambas are truly unique and deadly. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Were there any checks performed for source reliability, close paraphrasing, and copyvio? Sasata (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservation status

Articles about like things tend to be inconsistent in terms of the details provided in the box section. For example, the Black mamba and Western green mamba list conservation status, but this article on the Eastern Green Mamba does not. Ileanadu (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ileanadu have just volunteered to do some research and editing himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b37c:2800:d95a:3285:9ee:8488 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, the Eastern green mamba is in no danger of being wiped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b37c:2800:d95a:3285:9ee:8488 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Fly also does not mention conservation status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16U836 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Any one species has millions of individuals in it, of flies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16U836 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In view of diseases caused by flies, a wipe-out might be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16U836 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Biting flies cause about 30 diseases in human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16U836 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Bookmark

• this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Distribution map

The distribution for this species is incorrect and needs to be redrawn. WikiUpdateRSA (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That does not surprise me. You have a source? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo in speciesbox

In the photo at the top of the article, the snake's mouth looks very strange – there is a gap at the side of the mouth but the front is closed. I've never seen a snake hold its mouth like that. Was that snake's photo taken in a fleeting moment of awkward mouth position, or is it a venomoid specimen or injured or something of the sort? I suggest that this photo is a bit strange and should not be used. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

The article uses both "behaviour" and "coloration" at different points. Please change "coloration" to "colouration" and make any other English-usage changes that you may find along the way. 64.203.186.69 (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, for colouration. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 13:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence

Individuals usually reach adult colouration at a length of 75 cm (30 in)

has no punctuation at the end. Please add a full stop after (30 in), before the reference. 64.203.186.69 (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)