Talk:Many-banded krait

Many-banded krait has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 11, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Many-banded krait is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Many-banded krait/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead needs a large expansion.
Now that there is more information in it, the information not in the article should also be placed in the article
~~The genus was first described by Daudin, not the species~~
~~It says "the Inland taipan, the Eastern brown snake, the Black Mamba." you should add more or should you add "and" between the "," and the "the Black mamba"~~

Article

~~The gallery can be all but removed and the images can be placed in the article~~
~~Taxonomy and classification - the plural for genus is genera, not genus'~~

References

Ref 1 - It is version 2013.2, the ref should be ""Bungarus multicinctus". IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)"
~~Ref 2 - here is the proper ref I found for you ""Bungarus multicinctus". WCH Clinical Toxinology Resources. The University of Adelaide. Retrieved January 4, 2014."~~
Ref 3 - here "Snakes of Medical Importance: Asia-Pacific Region. Singapore: Venom and Toxin Research Group, National University of Singapore. 1990. p. 670. ISBN 9971-62-217-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)"
Ref 4 - here "Chan, S.; Wing-sze T.; Stokes, E. (2006). Zhui zong she ying : Xianggang lu qi du she tu jian [A field guide to the venomous land snakes of Hong Kong]. Hong Kong: Agriculture, Fisheries, and Conservation Department. p. 196. ISBN 988-211-326-5. OCLC 76958799.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)"
~~Ref 5 - not reliable, anyway, it does not contain the cited info~~
~~Ref 6 - it this reliable?~~
Ref 7 - here "Snakes in question: the Smithsonian answer book. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1996. p. 203. ISBN 1-56098-648-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)"
Ref 8 - seems good
Ref 9 - looks good
~~Ref 10 - here "James, J. (2008). The Snake Charmer: A Life and Death in Pursuit of Knowledge. Hyperion. p. 320. ASIN B002DYJKU2. ISBN 1401302130."~~
~~Ref 11 - url is down or it's a dead link~~
~~The refs need to be consistent. Some have full names, in GAs they generally have abbreviated names.~~
for "Blyth, E. 1861" it would be better to remove it and place it in the footnotes in the article, remove it altogether, or have "Blyth, E. 1861. p. 000" as footnotes if there is a lot of information it would cite as one ref.
The "In Memory of Joseph B. Slowinski" ref is a dead link, and it is not needed, because in the lead there is the same info and it is cited by "The Snake Charmer", which should be removed from the lead.

I have begun with the expansion of the article. By the time I am done with it, it will be much larger than what we started with. Don't worry about the references you posted, as I go expanding section by section everything will be fixed. However, if you have any immediate thing you want me to do, don't be afraid to tell me. --DendroNaja (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with your "expand during the GA review" strategy is, one of the criteria for a GA is that it is stable, and with you adding vast amounts of information it might not meet the stable criteria. Iainstein (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to wait until the end to remove the gallery when I am done with the article? Yes, I realized my mistake of putting Daudin as first describing the species in the lead. I changed it though. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost all the books named up there in my collection. I knew there was something wrong with the previous way the "Snakes of Medical Importance" was referenced. There are other books, which I also have, that have the same title but they aren't the same books. --DendroNaja (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm back. Been busy with work, but I will probably be finishing it today. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the article meets GA standards, please start on Forest Cobra now. Iainstein (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

I suggest to move most part of its toxicity description into the "Venom and Toxins" section since this is just the intro. Maybe just a single statement of it being one of the most venomous land snakes is enough there. I'd like to have a second voice. Biomedicinal (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Right then....

Earwigs has one false positive, otherwise copyvio clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add - this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Slowinsky

The reference to Joe Slowinsky should be corrected as the snake has been re-identified. See the article about him. Sverker.janson (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]