![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article states:
Contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous, as reported by the Queensland Museum.
This needs to be reworded by someone more intimate with the subject than I am.
Either of these would clarify:
* The Queensland Museum reports that, contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous. * Contrary to common belief, and reports from the Queensland Museum, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous.
However I'd go further and suggest that the Queensland Museum might not be needed there at all. Just make it a reference link if they have useful information on their own website. 218.214.148.59 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What'll it take to bump this article and other spider articles up to FA-Class? Does it just need more references, or is there more to it than that? Orichalcon 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In the Following paragraph:
Most Australians dislike the redback spider, thanks in part to the frequency with which it is encountered in the environs of human habitations (it managed to secure a footing in Australian folklore in 1972 when it was immortalised in the song "Redback on the Toilet Seat" by Slim Newton,[1] (though often incorrectly credited to Slim Dusty)).
I feel the bolded sections need to be revised or removed, as they either violate NPOV, or are irrelevant for the topic. The Slim Newton reference would go in a trivia section which is discouraged by Wikipedia anyway. And I can find no evidence that 50.01% or more of Australians dislike the redback.
I look forward to everyone's opinion on this matter.
I know nothing about these spiders but, after reading the article, I still have a question. Is it Red-back, Redback or Red Back? It may not be an important point but it stood out to me immediately. The article is titled Red-back spider and the opening sentence says "The redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti)...". The Bites in Humans sections says "Red back spider bites rarely cause significant morbidity".
It's possible that all of these forms of the name are correct but I think the article should adopt one and stick to it for consistency. -- Fruv ( talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have checked the NCIB and it seems the correct usage is redback. I will change all occurrences for consistency. Erick880 ( talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that One instance of a snake being eaten has been photographed. Any refs? There is a series of photographs floating around on the web of a spider resembling a L. hasselti eating a snake, but according to hoax-slayer this was a brown button spider (probably L. rhodesienses), and it happened in Africa. Wocky ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the statement "This strategy [i.e. eating him] seems to benefit the male because the female will not mate again." Clearly, being eaten cannot benefit any creature.-- Shantavira 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It can benefit the species because the process guarantees that the female is nourished in order to produce progeny. Perhaps the person who wrote "benefit the male" had misunderstood the meaning of some source material. -- Amandajm 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It may actually benefit the male (or at least the male's genes) if by allowing itself to be eaten the male prevents any other male replacing it as the gene source for the female's offspring. Evolution and heredity can be much more complex than they first appear. Robert Brockway 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The large abdomen photos on the white background in the articlew are by no means an average visual for the species - it is unusual in shape and a not typical example. Satu Suro 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just taken a photo of a large female L. hasselti guarding an agg-sac in a web; of particular interest is the fact that there's a male in shot as well. I took a separate photo of the male. Should I add them to the article? Wocky ( talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The three images in the distribution section have messed up the articles formatting, I would fix it but don't know how. Jse11 ( talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
On one of my holidays in Queensland I saw somewhere a display of redback spiders where the red back was either orange (not red-orange, but orange, like the eponymous fruit) or white. There was an opinion expressed that this was a mutation caused by eating insects containing significant amounts of insecticide. Pity I didn't take a photo, eh? Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Uhh, I am trying to do that. There is already some discussion about the colour in the article, I am trying to add more info. Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The picture was not a male red-back.
Female red-backs are not always marked. The male is tiny and pale coloured, with white markings and could easily be mistaken for something else, unless you are familiar with the species. -- Amandajm 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"In reality it is far less dangerous to the general population than a number of other dangerous spider species native to Australia." - Is this really true? What other Australian spiders have killed people? The article should name these more dangerous spiders, or the sentence should be removed, IMHO. Rocksong 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sydney Funnel-web? CSIRO Web Site - [2] according to the article: Bites from the Sydney funnel-web spider have resulted in deaths AdamJudd 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the article opens with the sentence Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia. No references are given, and it is not clear who considers them so dangerous. (This is an example of weasle words.) Isbister (Isbister, G. K., Gray, M. R. "Latrodectism: a prospective cohort study of bites by formally identified redback spiders", MJA 179 (2), 88-92; Isbister, G. K., White, J., "Clinical consequences of spider bites: recent advances in our understanding", Toxicon 43, 2004) states that these spiders are medically significant and an antivenene exists, but doctors are reluctant to administer the antivenene. I have been unable to find any cases of L. hasselti causing the death of anybody, although they do pose such a threat to small children and infirm adults.
That they are medically significant is certain; that they are "considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia" is doubtful. Wocky ( talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the comments and references above I removed "are considered" because it is unnecessary and weasely, but this has been reverted twice by Bidgee now. Please explain how "Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous species of spiders in Australia" needs the term "considered", or "species of" for that matter? Would you accept "Redbacks are one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia"? Djapa Owen ( talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article originally claimed red-backs are native to Western Australia, but the (new)Queensland Museum link says they were first seen in Queensland, and in ports, so may be introduced. I've put origins 'uncertain' until this can be sorted out. -- Townmouse 01:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally put in the West Austalian origin based on a few sources I read. I'm happy to leave the origin as uncertain until we get better information. I wonder if any genetic studies have been done on the Red Back. -- Robert Brockway 17:00, 5 Oct 2004 (EST)
The Australian Museum article on the red-back [4] mentions the Queensland Museum suggestion that the species may be introduced (which has been removed from their website), but goes on to say DNA studies suggest that the red-back and katipo are both locally evolved. Even so, it seems that opening with a categoric statement that this is an endemic species is rather heavy handed when major authorities are not certain. The reference [1] ackowledges the argument, but suggests the species may have originated in South Australia. Djapa Owen ( talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I and a couple of other editors are interested in getting this to GA soon. If you're watching this page and want to help, feel free to jump in. Some things we need to do are:
-- 99of9 ( talk) 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand how Theridium melanozantha could be the redback if it was found in coastal New Zealand. That sounds exactly right for katipo... which for most of history was considered the same as redback, so maybe they've merged it into the wrong synonym. I'm also wary of T. zebrina and L. ancorifer since the specimens were collected outside Australia. -- 99of9 ( talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
L. melanozanthus (Urquhart, 1887, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).
L. zebrinius (Urquhart, 1890, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Esoxid ( talk · contribs) 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Gave it a few initial reads, but I'll go more in depth. Esox id talk• contribs 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose: ok; Copyright: looks ok; Spelling: ok; Grammar: ok |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: ok; Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; Fiction: N/A; Lists: N/A |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Ref layout: ok |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Ok |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Ok |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Everything appears to be covered |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good detail |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Presented in NPOV |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No rapid changes or edit wars |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All under Creative Commons. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All ok |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passes GA review |
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00455.x/pdf -- 99of9 ( talk) 07:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we want to mention these? Or would that be a bridge too far? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I just check I have read the first sentences of this section correctly: the redback males do not leave their mother's web until their final moult, then do not eat again, searching for a mate. Is this correct? If so, perhaps the previous section should refer only to female spiderlings leaving the maternal web by ballooning etc? hamiltonstone ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Aaah, I see now - hamiltonstone has read the first two sentences of the reproduction section which are talking about the male. It is talking about their development and sounds like they directly leave from the maternal web looking for the female. Need to re-read source. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
really? Hmm. Wonder when publication will happen... hamiltonstone ( talk) 06:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
...on yet another excellent Aussie article.
My only unhappiness is that the picture of the male is poor quality, and too large by comparison with the female. It would be better as a text image, rather than in the box. Amandajm ( talk) 01:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the "Treatment" section has three uses of however in a few sentences. See general info on the overuse of the word however, and in this case specifically, it would be good to vary the prose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has a section heading that breaches WP:DATED (current). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
<quote>"Once alerted to a creature becoming ensnared in a trap line, the redback advances to around a leg's length from its target, touching it and squirting a superglue-like material"</quote> In what way is this material like superglue (beyond being sticky)?
"A recent unpublished study of the antivenom has questioned its effectiveness. 224 Australian patients were treated for redback spider bites with either standard pain relief or antivenom, but no difference in outcomes was observed.[101] These findings are disputed, and as yet have not changed clinical practice.[102]"
This seems to me to be placing undue weight on a single non-peer-reviewed study of its efficacy. Neither reference comes near to meeting the WP Medicine guidelines for reliable medical sources. I would suggest removing this material entirely at least until the study has been published in a peer-reviewed source. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it. 99, per this edit summary, see WP:BRD, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT (news) and WP:RECENTISM and please get consensus before re-adding it. Further, from reviewing the Featured article candidate page and the text now in the antivenom section, and treatment, it appears that more vigorous review per MEDRS would not be out of order. This template should be placed in the relevant sections. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Procedural note: The WP:BRD cycle started with Espresso Addict's removal of content from a pre-existing consensus. These sentences had been discussed and implemented during the FA review period. -- 99of9 ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have not done a thorough check-- only flagged a few that were easy [6] -- but my review is enough to reveal that this article was not checked at FAC for compliance with WP:MEDRS. (I don't believe it was checked either for citation consistency-- many PMIDs were missing, and there are various citation styles, but that is less critical than MEDRS. I don't think it was checked for MOSDATE#Precise language either.) I'm disappointed, considering I routinely scream at DYK for putting non-MEDRS-compliant articles on the mainpage. I hope someone will run through and make sure sources are used properly-- there's an awful lot of news sources in there, and I found numerous very old case reports, comments, and letters (and I didn't check everything). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, the citation issue is just a distraction, making it harder to locate and flag reviews; what is more important is that the content needs to be vetted per MEDRS. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
In reading this discussion, I went to the WP:MEDRS page for the first time. It indicates that newspapers are not reliable sources. Is this something which only applies to medical research? I ask this because I am fed up with writing articles on animal behaviour or welfare based on thorough research of scientific material, only to have an editor add some newspaper article which says completely the contrary based on one reporter's interpretation of a single report/research article. Are the rules of reliable sources different for medicine compared to other subjects? I realise this topic might not belong on this Talk page and I'm happy to raise it elsewhere if anybody has any suggestions of a more appropriate page.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A news article has spoke about a possible death of a 22 year old man due to the redback spider, but the actual cause has not been determined. Will follow up soon. Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Reported as Redback (still at 03June 2018) at https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/the-10-most-venomous-spiders-in-australia/ 120.16.11.145 ( talk) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)MBG
Pinging Casliber and 99of9, I just reverted a series of changes by Moderntarantula that removed a source with the unsubstantiated claim that it's "a bunch of hogwash" and introduced several other changes that don't appear to be supported by the cited sources and/or are poorly written. Moderntarantula, with due respect we can't accept your personal opinion on the cited sources unless you can cite a reliable published source debunking that source. Everything else you introduced has to be verifiable by reliable sources. -- Laser brain (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @ Moderntarantula: Thanks for your engagement. I will try to get some time to go through your proposed changes. I agree with some of them. -- 99of9 ( talk) 02:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article states:
Contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous, as reported by the Queensland Museum.
This needs to be reworded by someone more intimate with the subject than I am.
Either of these would clarify:
* The Queensland Museum reports that, contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous. * Contrary to common belief, and reports from the Queensland Museum, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous.
However I'd go further and suggest that the Queensland Museum might not be needed there at all. Just make it a reference link if they have useful information on their own website. 218.214.148.59 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What'll it take to bump this article and other spider articles up to FA-Class? Does it just need more references, or is there more to it than that? Orichalcon 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In the Following paragraph:
Most Australians dislike the redback spider, thanks in part to the frequency with which it is encountered in the environs of human habitations (it managed to secure a footing in Australian folklore in 1972 when it was immortalised in the song "Redback on the Toilet Seat" by Slim Newton,[1] (though often incorrectly credited to Slim Dusty)).
I feel the bolded sections need to be revised or removed, as they either violate NPOV, or are irrelevant for the topic. The Slim Newton reference would go in a trivia section which is discouraged by Wikipedia anyway. And I can find no evidence that 50.01% or more of Australians dislike the redback.
I look forward to everyone's opinion on this matter.
I know nothing about these spiders but, after reading the article, I still have a question. Is it Red-back, Redback or Red Back? It may not be an important point but it stood out to me immediately. The article is titled Red-back spider and the opening sentence says "The redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti)...". The Bites in Humans sections says "Red back spider bites rarely cause significant morbidity".
It's possible that all of these forms of the name are correct but I think the article should adopt one and stick to it for consistency. -- Fruv ( talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have checked the NCIB and it seems the correct usage is redback. I will change all occurrences for consistency. Erick880 ( talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that One instance of a snake being eaten has been photographed. Any refs? There is a series of photographs floating around on the web of a spider resembling a L. hasselti eating a snake, but according to hoax-slayer this was a brown button spider (probably L. rhodesienses), and it happened in Africa. Wocky ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the statement "This strategy [i.e. eating him] seems to benefit the male because the female will not mate again." Clearly, being eaten cannot benefit any creature.-- Shantavira 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It can benefit the species because the process guarantees that the female is nourished in order to produce progeny. Perhaps the person who wrote "benefit the male" had misunderstood the meaning of some source material. -- Amandajm 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It may actually benefit the male (or at least the male's genes) if by allowing itself to be eaten the male prevents any other male replacing it as the gene source for the female's offspring. Evolution and heredity can be much more complex than they first appear. Robert Brockway 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The large abdomen photos on the white background in the articlew are by no means an average visual for the species - it is unusual in shape and a not typical example. Satu Suro 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just taken a photo of a large female L. hasselti guarding an agg-sac in a web; of particular interest is the fact that there's a male in shot as well. I took a separate photo of the male. Should I add them to the article? Wocky ( talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The three images in the distribution section have messed up the articles formatting, I would fix it but don't know how. Jse11 ( talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
On one of my holidays in Queensland I saw somewhere a display of redback spiders where the red back was either orange (not red-orange, but orange, like the eponymous fruit) or white. There was an opinion expressed that this was a mutation caused by eating insects containing significant amounts of insecticide. Pity I didn't take a photo, eh? Old_Wombat ( talk) 10:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Uhh, I am trying to do that. There is already some discussion about the colour in the article, I am trying to add more info. Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The picture was not a male red-back.
Female red-backs are not always marked. The male is tiny and pale coloured, with white markings and could easily be mistaken for something else, unless you are familiar with the species. -- Amandajm 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"In reality it is far less dangerous to the general population than a number of other dangerous spider species native to Australia." - Is this really true? What other Australian spiders have killed people? The article should name these more dangerous spiders, or the sentence should be removed, IMHO. Rocksong 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sydney Funnel-web? CSIRO Web Site - [2] according to the article: Bites from the Sydney funnel-web spider have resulted in deaths AdamJudd 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the article opens with the sentence Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia. No references are given, and it is not clear who considers them so dangerous. (This is an example of weasle words.) Isbister (Isbister, G. K., Gray, M. R. "Latrodectism: a prospective cohort study of bites by formally identified redback spiders", MJA 179 (2), 88-92; Isbister, G. K., White, J., "Clinical consequences of spider bites: recent advances in our understanding", Toxicon 43, 2004) states that these spiders are medically significant and an antivenene exists, but doctors are reluctant to administer the antivenene. I have been unable to find any cases of L. hasselti causing the death of anybody, although they do pose such a threat to small children and infirm adults.
That they are medically significant is certain; that they are "considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia" is doubtful. Wocky ( talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the comments and references above I removed "are considered" because it is unnecessary and weasely, but this has been reverted twice by Bidgee now. Please explain how "Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous species of spiders in Australia" needs the term "considered", or "species of" for that matter? Would you accept "Redbacks are one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia"? Djapa Owen ( talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article originally claimed red-backs are native to Western Australia, but the (new)Queensland Museum link says they were first seen in Queensland, and in ports, so may be introduced. I've put origins 'uncertain' until this can be sorted out. -- Townmouse 01:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally put in the West Austalian origin based on a few sources I read. I'm happy to leave the origin as uncertain until we get better information. I wonder if any genetic studies have been done on the Red Back. -- Robert Brockway 17:00, 5 Oct 2004 (EST)
The Australian Museum article on the red-back [4] mentions the Queensland Museum suggestion that the species may be introduced (which has been removed from their website), but goes on to say DNA studies suggest that the red-back and katipo are both locally evolved. Even so, it seems that opening with a categoric statement that this is an endemic species is rather heavy handed when major authorities are not certain. The reference [1] ackowledges the argument, but suggests the species may have originated in South Australia. Djapa Owen ( talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I and a couple of other editors are interested in getting this to GA soon. If you're watching this page and want to help, feel free to jump in. Some things we need to do are:
-- 99of9 ( talk) 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand how Theridium melanozantha could be the redback if it was found in coastal New Zealand. That sounds exactly right for katipo... which for most of history was considered the same as redback, so maybe they've merged it into the wrong synonym. I'm also wary of T. zebrina and L. ancorifer since the specimens were collected outside Australia. -- 99of9 ( talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
L. melanozanthus (Urquhart, 1887, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).
L. zebrinius (Urquhart, 1890, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Esoxid ( talk · contribs) 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Gave it a few initial reads, but I'll go more in depth. Esox id talk• contribs 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose: ok; Copyright: looks ok; Spelling: ok; Grammar: ok |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: ok; Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; Fiction: N/A; Lists: N/A |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Ref layout: ok |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Ok |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Ok |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Everything appears to be covered |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good detail |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Presented in NPOV |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No rapid changes or edit wars |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All under Creative Commons. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All ok |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passes GA review |
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00455.x/pdf -- 99of9 ( talk) 07:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we want to mention these? Or would that be a bridge too far? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I just check I have read the first sentences of this section correctly: the redback males do not leave their mother's web until their final moult, then do not eat again, searching for a mate. Is this correct? If so, perhaps the previous section should refer only to female spiderlings leaving the maternal web by ballooning etc? hamiltonstone ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Aaah, I see now - hamiltonstone has read the first two sentences of the reproduction section which are talking about the male. It is talking about their development and sounds like they directly leave from the maternal web looking for the female. Need to re-read source. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
really? Hmm. Wonder when publication will happen... hamiltonstone ( talk) 06:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
...on yet another excellent Aussie article.
My only unhappiness is that the picture of the male is poor quality, and too large by comparison with the female. It would be better as a text image, rather than in the box. Amandajm ( talk) 01:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the "Treatment" section has three uses of however in a few sentences. See general info on the overuse of the word however, and in this case specifically, it would be good to vary the prose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This article has a section heading that breaches WP:DATED (current). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
<quote>"Once alerted to a creature becoming ensnared in a trap line, the redback advances to around a leg's length from its target, touching it and squirting a superglue-like material"</quote> In what way is this material like superglue (beyond being sticky)?
"A recent unpublished study of the antivenom has questioned its effectiveness. 224 Australian patients were treated for redback spider bites with either standard pain relief or antivenom, but no difference in outcomes was observed.[101] These findings are disputed, and as yet have not changed clinical practice.[102]"
This seems to me to be placing undue weight on a single non-peer-reviewed study of its efficacy. Neither reference comes near to meeting the WP Medicine guidelines for reliable medical sources. I would suggest removing this material entirely at least until the study has been published in a peer-reviewed source. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it. 99, per this edit summary, see WP:BRD, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT (news) and WP:RECENTISM and please get consensus before re-adding it. Further, from reviewing the Featured article candidate page and the text now in the antivenom section, and treatment, it appears that more vigorous review per MEDRS would not be out of order. This template should be placed in the relevant sections. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Procedural note: The WP:BRD cycle started with Espresso Addict's removal of content from a pre-existing consensus. These sentences had been discussed and implemented during the FA review period. -- 99of9 ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have not done a thorough check-- only flagged a few that were easy [6] -- but my review is enough to reveal that this article was not checked at FAC for compliance with WP:MEDRS. (I don't believe it was checked either for citation consistency-- many PMIDs were missing, and there are various citation styles, but that is less critical than MEDRS. I don't think it was checked for MOSDATE#Precise language either.) I'm disappointed, considering I routinely scream at DYK for putting non-MEDRS-compliant articles on the mainpage. I hope someone will run through and make sure sources are used properly-- there's an awful lot of news sources in there, and I found numerous very old case reports, comments, and letters (and I didn't check everything). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, the citation issue is just a distraction, making it harder to locate and flag reviews; what is more important is that the content needs to be vetted per MEDRS. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
In reading this discussion, I went to the WP:MEDRS page for the first time. It indicates that newspapers are not reliable sources. Is this something which only applies to medical research? I ask this because I am fed up with writing articles on animal behaviour or welfare based on thorough research of scientific material, only to have an editor add some newspaper article which says completely the contrary based on one reporter's interpretation of a single report/research article. Are the rules of reliable sources different for medicine compared to other subjects? I realise this topic might not belong on this Talk page and I'm happy to raise it elsewhere if anybody has any suggestions of a more appropriate page.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A news article has spoke about a possible death of a 22 year old man due to the redback spider, but the actual cause has not been determined. Will follow up soon. Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Reported as Redback (still at 03June 2018) at https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/the-10-most-venomous-spiders-in-australia/ 120.16.11.145 ( talk) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)MBG
Pinging Casliber and 99of9, I just reverted a series of changes by Moderntarantula that removed a source with the unsubstantiated claim that it's "a bunch of hogwash" and introduced several other changes that don't appear to be supported by the cited sources and/or are poorly written. Moderntarantula, with due respect we can't accept your personal opinion on the cited sources unless you can cite a reliable published source debunking that source. Everything else you introduced has to be verifiable by reliable sources. -- Laser brain (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @ Moderntarantula: Thanks for your engagement. I will try to get some time to go through your proposed changes. I agree with some of them. -- 99of9 ( talk) 02:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)