Talk:Eastern green mamba/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)