Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [1].

King brown snake[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a big nasty Aussie critter. Have scoured sources and it is about as comprehensive as I can make it. I think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. I'll fix stuff up quick. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:King_Brown_Mulga_Range.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the map was made many years ago by someone other than me. I have looked at the IUCN redlist map and it matches and have modified the page to indicate same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

I'll have a look soon, at first glance I see a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this photo[2] showing the whole snake would be better as infobox image?

that was the orginal image. I wondered whether the snake was dead as its eyes looked a bit cloudy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader seems to only have photos of live snakes, but hard to say, he seems to not be active anymore, otherwise he could be asked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked anyway...you never know...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox image is also nice, but since it actually shows the animal in its habitat, I wonder if it would be better under the habitat section, and then the photo of a captive snake there could maybe be moved down to the captivity section, where it is more relevant?

the captive snake is slightly out of focus and is in an unusual yellow-orange light. The one in the description section is better. I am feeling a bit frustrated about the images in the article TBH. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I meant the captive snake seems misplaced in a section about distribution, would seem better under the captivity section? That part of the article is also quite bare. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 could get a citation.

damn - lots of sources describe it as the largest, and others note that hte taipan is the longest. Now I can't remember where I saw them discussed relative to each other! Still looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"described Pseudechis darwiniensis" and "distinguishing P. darwinioides", not sure if this is a typo or if we are talking about different names? The latter name seems rather unlikely, though, "similar to Darwin"?

a typo - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You present some writers but not others.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"lineage of smaller snake)" Snakes?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"with no general agreement on other species described until 2005" Not sure what is meant here. Other related species? Relation with other species?

I meant older taxa that had been described as separate species, but no-one used those names at all...so there was a general agreement...that they were synonymous. Changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to a lineage of large snake found" Snakes?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"determined that the P. australis" Why the?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and recommends dropping the name and the old term "Darwin brown snake"" What was proposed instead?

"mulga snake" - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it is known as atetherr-ayne-wene "budgerigar-eater"" Shouldn't a comma, colon, or similar separate the two names?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more synonyms are listed in the taxonomy section than are in the infobox.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the taxonomy section goes into a lot of measurement and danger stuff, but is it really relevant there instead of elsewhere?

the items mentioned are used to explain the names - not sure how we can rejig Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made more sense on second read. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"is up to two metres" Elsewhere you abbreviate to m and convert.

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scale terminology is pretty esoteric, perhaps the locations could be explained in parenthesis?

found one more link - but that is why there is a see also link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales to assist with looking at it all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't press the issue, but in dinosaur FACs one is always ask to provide in-text explanations even though there are links. I recall there is a guideline saying "don't make the reader chase links", but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added something for the more obscure ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Within their arid to semi-arid parts of their range" The?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The species is tolerant of cold and active at night across most its range, although those occurring" Since you say "the species", saying "those" is ambiguous, perhaps say those populations or individuals instead.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the incubating temperature has been recorded as between 22 and 32 °C (72 and 90 °F).[36] They average" Though you of course mean the eggs, the preceding sentence is about their temperature, so you should mention the eggs again ("the eggs average").

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"watching it bleed blood" Blood seems redundant.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If the snake were killed" Was.

that is the subjunctive construction...but doesn't really fit so fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The victims should move as little as possible, and to be conveyed to a hospital or clinic" Why to?

a leftover before a rewording. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"assuming a king brown snake agent is reasonable if a snakebite victim had a raised apTT and signs of haemolysis." Why change in tense?

a leftover before a rewording. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"high proportion of bites on occurring on upper limbs." Is the first on needed?

no. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"He reported later that he had impulsively decided to commit suicide by placing his hand in a bag and stirring it up" Not sure what this means, was the snake in the bag?

yes. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

"called "chewi"" Do we really need this information?

I think it breaks up the repetitiveness of the prose...and it's cute too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" When using 0.1% bovine serum albumin in saline rather than saline alone, The venom" Something wrong here, should it be "the venom"?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You use both ise and ize endings.

In Australia we tend to use British spelling plus "-ize". I keep forgetting to change... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"member of the genus Pseudechis (black snakes)" perhaps state the common name when you mention the genus name in the article body too?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, still wondering about the footnote source and if the captive snake image should be moved down to the captivity section. Then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved down the image and commented out the footnote (I can't find the source that specifically says it now) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looking good. Perhaps better images will turn up down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx - snakes are harder to photograph I think, so good photos are often strictly licenced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks carried out
Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
Formats:

Ref 32: WorldCat gives 1996 as the publication year. Also, for consistency, you should add publisher location. Incidentally, I must say that "Reader's Digest" sits rather sheepishly among so many scholarly sources, but perhaps Underhill, the author, has the credentials?

I didn't add this. ~~Musing on it~~ ~~Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)~~ I have removed it - the first segment it cited is duplicated, and the second comment on deprecation is patently false as the name is the most common common name. I have a segment on why the name is problematic too in the taxonomy section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 39: Publisher location missing, and p. should be pp.

added and pp'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 45: Requires access date

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 49: Maybe requires access date?

a periodical so not added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 57: pub. location again

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/reliability: no issues, beyond my curiosity about the RD.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Lead

"Its alternative common name is the mulga snake, though it lives in many habitats apart from mulga, found in most habitats except rainforest." This sentence is mangled.

yeah, last bit got inadvertently left in. Taken it out now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Its main effect is on striated muscle tissue, causing paralysis from muscle damage, and also commonly affects blood clotting (coagulopathy). " perhaps "but it also commonly affects blood clotting ..."

I have mixed feelings on this as it the facts are not exactly contrastive. But the run-on "and" isn't great either. Am musing on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

"Isolated in 1979, mulgotoxin consists of a single polypeptide chain of 122 amino-acid residues ..." citing Leonardi et al ~~1970~~ 1979. I do not think it is worth including the name 'mulgotoxin a' here. The authors give the (approximate) aa composition and (approximate) size but do not sequence the N-term nor do they test for phospholipase activity. Without the aa sequence info it is difficult to relate the name to the many phospholipases sequenced in later articles such as here and here (all of which contain 118 aa).

So remove the name or remove the sentence? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you delete the sentence and rejig. Mulgotoxin is not well characterised in the paper and the name is not used in important later studies. The amino acid count is also almost certainly incorrect. A sequence alignment of 14 PA2 isoforms extracted from the venom is given in Table 2 of Takasaki et al 1990. The polypeptides contain either 117 or 118 amino acids. (I suspect Leonardi et al analysed a mixture of isoforms and the techniques available at the time would have only given an approximate size.) - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did wonder - I tried this to rejig Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite containing a number of agents with phospholipase A2 activity, king brown snake venom exhibits no neurotoxicity.[54]" where 54 is Georgieva et al 2011. The statement isn't supported by the source. On p.2459 "Pa-1G is an exception to this rule and it is the first acidic phospholipase A2 with high neurotoxicity" and on p.2460 "Neurotoxicity can be supposed due to the presence of PLA2s in the venom." Perhaps "little phospholipase A2 activity". Also consider making more use of Georgieva et al 2011. "However, myotoxicity is the major pharmacological effect following the P. australis bites.66 This can be explained by a strong and direct myotoxic action of a large quantity of PLA2s on the muscles. Myotoxicity is independent of the enzymatic activity.67"

Funnily enough I did read that paper a few times and muse on expanding from it more. ~~I will read and think. Late here and I need to sleep~~. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)changed to "little" neurotoxicity. Regarding second point, I had already written "These proteins are directly toxic on muscle tissue due to their sheer volume in the venom,...." (directly assuming not mediated by enzymes...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

This is section contains a series of very short paragraphs. Can they be linked in some way? - Aa77zz (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been frustrating. It is clearly an iconic animal across multiple indigenous nations in Australia, but I can't for the life of me find one source stating as such, or anything encompassing at all (which this section desperately needs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Hi Cas Liber. Working my way through the article...
Lead:

I agree with Aa77zz above that "Its alternative common name is the mulga snake, though it lives in many habitats apart from mulga, found in most habitats except rainforest." is unclear. ~~For one thing, I'm not sure reading this whether it's the king brown snake or the mulga snake that is found in most habitats except rainforest.~~

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, reading again I see the king brown snake and the mulga snake are one and the same, so what I wrote above is not a valid point of confusion. Still, the last bit "found in most habitats except rainforest" tacked on after the comma is not very clear. Maybe "; the snake is found in most habitats except rainforest" would be clearer. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

have removed offending segment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The venom is not as potent as those of Australia's other dangerous snakes, but it is when delivered in large quantities." Unclear and possibly contradictory. Literally it says that the venom is not as potent as that of other dangerous snakes, but that the venom can be as potent as that of other dangerous snakes. More comments to follow soon. Moisejp (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "potent" as "per gram" or something - like the LD50. So the venom itself much less potent than many other snakes, but due to the sheer volume of venom injected it is still pretty dangerous (if not potent as such...?) e.g. see Potency (pharmacology) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what it's meant to mean, but feel the literal meaning of what is currently written is not precise. How about something like, "those of Australia's other dangerous/poisonous snakes, but in large quantities can still be lethal/dangerous"? Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changed to "but it is delivered in quantities large enough to cause severe effects." - could be "severe illness/injury etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked your edit. See what you think. Moisejp (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah that is ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

"Australian herpetologists Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington described Cannia centralis in 1985 from a 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) specimen collected 8 km (5 mi) north of Tennant Creek in 1977, distinguishing it on the basis of a narrow head,[10] however it is not regarded as distinct."

I suggest the punctuation "...narrow head; however, it is not regarded as distinct." The bit introduced by "however" is an independent clause, and there should not be a simple comma after "narrow head".

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confusing. Wells and Wellington distinguished it (in other words, considered it in some way to be distinct), but it is not regarded as distinct. Moisejp (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes - they said it was distinct on account of its narrow head. Other authors haven't recognised this. Could change to "the distinction was not supported by other authors". I will see if there is anything else I can find..Wells, Wellington and Hoser named numbers of new species with little evidence and have been roundly criticised by herpetologists. (see page 10 where they give reasons for dismissing Cannia plus a host of other names) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the distinction was not supported by other authors" works for me. Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have gone with that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

It may be a matter of preference—and if you disagree with me I won't insist—but in the first paragraph of this section there are an awful lot of sentences (actually all but one) starting with "The". Would you be against changing any of them around for more variation within the paragraph?

Guilty as charged. Usually I hate this and I try to avoid. I have tried varying the wording Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! This paragraph flows a lot better now. Moisejp (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour:

"It is more active during the day in cooler climates and at night in hotter climates,[24] particularly the evening during hot spells. It is less active during the middle of the day and between midnight and dawn, retiring to crevices in the soil, old animal burrows, or under rocks or logs"

"particularly in the evening in hotter climates" feels awkward and unclear to me. Just before that it's talking about cool vs. hot climates, including the statement that it's more active at night in hotter climates. Then when I get to the next bit, I'm not sure whether "evening" and "night", and "hotter climates" and "hot spells", are supposed to be synonymous, in which case it seems repetitive. Also whether "hot spells" is supposed also be true of hot spells in cooler climates; if so, then there may be contradiction between the blanket statement that in cooler climates it's most active in the day, and the statement that it can be most active in the evening (is the evening included in day or night? It's not clear). Maybe the word "particularly" also adds to the lack of clarity.
"It is less active during the middle of the day and between midnight and dawn" is additionally confusing when added to the confusion of the previous sentence. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(belatedly) I did rejig the order of this - does it make more sense now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"in the early Southern Hemisphere spring in southwest Western Australia, mid-spring in the Eyre Peninsula and with the Wet Season in the north of the country" I wonder if there is anything you can wiki-link for "Southern Hemisphere spring". I couldn't immediately parse that sentence, but eventually I figured it out. Maybe it's just me. If there's nothing to be done about this one, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rjigged the order so that it makes more sense now (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "average xxx in length and xxx in width" (not "average xxx long and xxx wide") but possibly it's a regional difference in English? If what you currently have sounds perfectly normal to you, no problem, just checking in case. :-) Moisejp (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, read that through....I think you're right and changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venom:

"Its venom is not particularly toxic to mice, but it is produced in huge quantities". I could be wrong (and if so, apologies) but from the way it is written, I wonder whether there is an "if" missing from the second part of the sentence. If this is the case, it may suffer from the same issue that we discussed before of "The venom is not as potent as those of Australia's other dangerous snakes, but it is if delivered in large quantities." If so, could we edit it similarly to how we did for that sentence?

need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is the next few sentences talk about the huge amount of venom produced - I went with removing the "not particularly toxic" segment as I guess it can be construed as subjective Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) long king brown snake milked by John Cann produced 1350 mg, and then 580, 920, and 780 mg at three, four, and five months after the first milking." Do you think it would be worthwhile to introduce John Cann with his occupation or credentials? Moisejp (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha the Snake Man of La Perouse....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"They add assuming a king brown snake agent is reasonable if a snakebite victim had a raised aPTT and signs of haemolysis." I'm not sure what this ("They add assuming") means in the context of what precedes it. Is there a way to reword it in the article to make it clearer?

Okay, how is this then (only took me 8 hours to post that due to dodgy internet!!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"though the amount injected makes it more hazardous": Does this mean "depending on the amount of venom released when they bite, they [or "their bites"] can sometimes be more hazardous"? If so, I'd like to suggest what I wrote may be clearer. Moisejp (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes - added "potentially large". Does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

"Johnston and colleagues", "Razavi and colleagues": I understand in journal articles it's probably usual to not use first names here, but in encyclopedia (Wikipedia) articles—whose audience may be less academic—I wonder if there's also a strong precedent to not include first names here. Just checking. If you're confident it's good as is, no worries.

I have their first names in now, but I can't find what subspecialties of medicine they are in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Johnston and colleagues propose giving antivenom immediately if king brown snake envenoming is suspected, as a two-hour delay did not prevent muscle damage." All the verbs in the second half of the paragraph are in the present tense except did, which is perfectly fine semantically. But I wonder if you could add a little more context here to "did not prevent muscle damage" (for example, was this based on the study of a single occurrence in 2013, or based on a study of many incidents that had been reported over a longer period of time?) to make the verb tense change less jarring for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added a bit of context - is that enough? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all of my comments. Please do follow up with your thoughts on the mice question above. Then if you resolve my most recent points above, I think I'll be ready to support. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article didn't come together as easily as some others I have worked on. Your changes look ok. Have been busy IRL but getting to them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I’ll have another look ASAP, hopefully this weekend. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm happy to support now, based on prose. Although I don't know much about snakes, my layman's impression is that this also seems quite comprehensive. Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.