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 GrahamColm 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

Redback spider[edit]

Redback spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have scoured references and feel this is buffed to the point it is within striking distance of FA status if not already there (I am sure folks will find stuff to improve :)). So have a read and have at it -we'll respond promptly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by User Snowmanradio[edit]

The nominators' comments seem welcoming, so I will make some comments having read the article from beginning to end. I have never been first to review a FA before. I have not considered MOS and I have not spot checked any references yet. Please consider my comments as ideas for discussion, which might or might not lead somewhere eventually. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction
I would think most people would understand it meant all the continents bar that one, still I have changed the adjective to "cosmopolitan" - as in meaning 4 here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description
That has been "commonly argued", so I've added it as a possibility. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taxonomy section and downwards
Finding info is elusive, but the structure of the source (with lots of arachnologists describing species) suggests that the specimens were sent to Sweden and described there (and remain still). I saw somewhere where the specimen is and will add specimen location added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a synonym. clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we are writing as we are really familiar with it - will tweak. have rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally only put frequently used or common alternative common names - most of these other names are very rare and redback is pretty universal, hence I feel that putting a very rare common name is undue weight really. Actually, "jockey spider" is not uncommon so will use that in lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall seeing material on the variability of the stripe. Will take a look. now added - all-black females are occasionally found (and reffed). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
several have been described but I am 99% sure that none are considered valid now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Perhaps, the article could have a clear line like that. It was the line "... and named L. ancorifer from New Guinea, which has since been regarded as conspecific.", which seemed to open the door to it being a subspecies. The word "conspecific" is used twice. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed a conspecific and made a definitive statement about no subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have modified it using the Garb 2004 paper. Is there enough detail? Snowman (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so - the wording is an improvement - it becomes tricky deciding what should be in this article and what really is the domain of the genus article only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recall seeing discussion on fangs in descriptions, which is weird. They are not prominent. Will take another look at some descriptions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
L. mactans has two fangs and since they were once considered conspecific, I'm convinced, but it's not a slam dunk. I think most/all spiders have two. I'll have a bit more of a look.--99of9 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try and find one in my garden and take a photo with a macro lens. I am sure they have small fangs, just can't find a source to reff it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ibister says small fangs --99of9 (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article now says; "... with a very small fang.[19]". This can not be right, because they have two fangs. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is because each chelicera is written as a single structure in that bit - I have rejigged it to write as a paired structure 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Unfortunately we have failed to find any sources discussing the size or colour of the eyes. Generally only jumping spiders or those relying on eyesight (like walking hunter spiders or the net-casting spiders) have big eyes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
flickr image. This is the best photograph that I could find on flickr showing the front of a redback spider. It looks immature, and I am not sure if the eyes change colour when they are adult. It looks like this one has eight (four pairs) of small round dark-brown eyes. A reference for eight eyes is the sort of thing to look out for. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Black Widow Spider (1935) appears to say that the genus has eight eyes and describes their position. So does The Edinburgh Enclopaedia (1830). Snowman (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reference is for the Black widow and not this species - the second is better but is from 1830..surely we can get a more recent ref than this. If nothing comes up will stick it in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Life cycle
✔ Done wikilinked 99of9 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added some info - spiders can lower metabolic rate and also store large amount of food in their abdomens Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't know - their ability to do so is impressive and has been examined in several studies - see in this paper. It also mentions a possible mechanism in another species of spider, which might be a little tangential to include here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think that how other spiders survive cold (by eating cold-temperature surviving creatures) could be a red herring. From the 2011 paper, it sounds like a tough spider with no known pathogens, but the paper says that it does not like damp and it needs a relatively warm summer (or shelter) to breed. They call "parachuting" on a thread, "Ballooning (spider)" and the Wiki says that it can also be called "kiting". Snowman (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the bit on warm summers as it qualifies the cold tolerance and is important. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources say they leave as soon as there is wind to allow them to balloon away - I think this must be a matter of days as they have to be tiny to disperse like this and mature in 3-4 months. We haven't been able to find a number to put in unfortunately. Spider sources are alot harder to find than bird ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information can not be added it if is not in sources. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, however the sources I have seen to this point do not elaborate on this - one other source which might have more detail I have ordered on Interlibrary loan so I should get it in a day or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that Use Casliber has now explained that this is some detail Snowman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done not unless they are starved. 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done No field studies are available, but apparently they were happy with the menu supplied by lab researchers. Sentence added. 99of9 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Space inserted - so all should be "egg sac". Good catch with the egg sac size. Added now (must have got distracted with all the egg numbers when reading those sources....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes - they can build communal webs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only go on what the refs say - some females are smaller than one centimetre so it could be a small female, or the web may not be rectangular. Other options are that I can leave the web size out, add a "generally" to allow for exceptions - what do you think?
I am a bit puzzled about the sizes of the two parts of the web - the funnel and the rest of it. If you have seen any webs, is your estimation of their size consistent with the published data. The article says "web is a disorganised, irregular tangle", and it almost sounds it the web is made at random and the spider does not know how to make a web properly. I read that the web has some fine structural features, so I think that the article gives the wrong impression about the web. Snowman (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a video on the Australian Museum website, which shows a web that looks bigger than 20 cm squared; see Web Design... Redback Style. The narrator says that the redback spider's web is "one of natures great feats of engineering". Snowman (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the web area is suspect. My specific suspicion is that the citation (a professional publication) confused 20cm^2 with 20cm x 20cm. The webs I've seen are in the range (5cm x 5cm) to (20cm x 20cm). Here's where my scientific instincts go for truth (or leaving it out) over verifiability... --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed it as there are too many uncertainties for the information to be of benefit to the reader. We cannot interpret or correct a source unless we have another source that does so, hence I have removed the dimensions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The size of the web has been dealt with, but the description has not been amended. Saying that it is disorganized is giving the wrong impression, because the web has fine engineering properties. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me the point of the words is in apposition to the symmetrical webs of some spiders - I have removed "disorganised" and left in "irregular" which I think is sufficient in highlighting this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new word chosen is better. I think that webs with this sort of organization are called tangle webs, see Theridiidae and Spider web, so I think that this classification can also be used to describe its web. This will help to clarify the difference with spiral orb webs and other sorts of webs. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added material on classification of web Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, gum-footed tangle webs are new to me. It is always good to learn something new, I plan to look it up. Another problem in this section is that "The vertical strands serve two purposes: they snare prey and small insects and can be lifted in the air, ..." does not make sense. It should say that the attachments of the strong strands to the lower surface are week and when they give way the entangled creature is lifted from the ground. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reworded it to make it clearer but suspect it could be worded better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks logical now. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have added to lead - discussion of nocturnal nature in sources describes female. The sources don't discuss the male so much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All spiders are. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that is too general to be included, like saying birds are warm blooded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is obvious to me now that spiders are cold blooded, but when I started reading the article I did not know that. When I found out that spiders are cold blooded, I understood some of its behaviors, its 100 day survival without food and its requirement for a warm summer to breed better, so I would think that a few words is worth adding with the the mention warm places or warm summers. Incidentally, the Wiki article "Bird" does not say that birds are warm blooded and the Wiki Spider article does not say that spiders are cold blooded. I would accept the reasoning that "cold blooded" is too obvious to mention, if it was obvious elsewhere on the Wiki, and the redback spider article signposted a suitable informative Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited the spider areticle to say they are ectotherms. I'm not in favour of a "signpost" to that fact, because most readers would already look higher up the tree if they want such general information.--99of9 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reproduction
Recent enhancements to the article have made aspects of reproduction clearer, so this less of an issue now. I have put a strike through it. If it can be included, then fine. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
clarified now. changed to "each of two palps" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed it to; "The redback spider is one of only two animals known where the male has been found to actively assist the female". Is that what was intended? Snowman (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that is correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Forster paper suggests the ratio of males to females might be 3:2. I'll see what is said elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information needs to be put in proper context. A female spider can lay 200 (or more) eggs in one egg sac, so there might be about 100 male spiderlings (might be some other ratio) per batch. So 20% of these indicate that 20 males from each eggsac breed. Actually, the population would retain its numbers if 1% of male spiders survived from spiderlings and lived to breed and all the survivors were all eaten by females at the time of mating. Even 1% is a very high estimate, because the males sperm can be stored and used to fertilise the eggs of several egg sacs and not just one. It is probably a bit like tadpoles, there are 100s hatching from the frog spawn and only a few live to adulthood Snowman (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 20% number in this quote is now contradicted by a newly added line, which says ".. , but that only around 11-13% successfully found a mate.[34]". Snowman (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realised these numbers are from the same paper (we accidentally reffed it twice without realising) - she studied 2 groups of male spiders which succeeded 11 and 13% respectively, and concluded that "More than 80% of redback males die without finding a potential mate in nature." I have reworded to reflect this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer Snowman's original question -I have only seen the one paper mentioning sex ratio and we can only add what is in sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking back, I think that the original question was not logical when applied to creatures that have 100s of offspring; however a clarification has been made as a result of discussing the issue. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One way to deal with this here is to leave it to the linked pages to explain. Having said that, it is the specifics of the toxin that has been studied a lot and makes this species interesting to medical science. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO that should be at latrodectism (and maybe once on the genus page) since it's common to all latrodectus venom. Including it on every species page would make it difficult to update and keep consistent. This article is about the spider - we have to be careful not to over-medicalize it. 99of9 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with 99of9 and snowmanradio Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
turns out it is a bit of a mystery. They appear to be attracted by pheromones and may also balloon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The newly information looks incomplete. There is more in Risky mate search and male self-sacrifice in redback spiders, 2002, which says males leave there own web after their last instar to look for a female and that they do not eat while searching and live 6 to 8 weeks. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha, good find - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distribution and habitat
It is pretty clear that it has adapted and spread within urban areas. There is some thought it might have been introduced, but the consensus is that it is native. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edits to this section have made this clearer. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is already wikilinked, which I think is sufficient. It's a reasonably common biogeographic description of a common type of Australian bushland, and would be hard to replace without losing accuracy. 99of9 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have indicated that biogeographists would understand it, but you have not convinced me that it is not jargon. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snowman, I have used the word often in Australian articles - it means a dry forest or woodland almost always dominated by eucalypts - sometimes the dominant tree can be acacia or even callitris. So I cannot think of a single plain/general word which is equivalent without losing meaning. I felt it was sufficient with a wikilink which then elaborates exactly what a sclerophyll forest is. It is not exactly lay-english, but is much much more frequently used here in Australia than elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong with using a line instead? The linked sclerophyll page says that there are two types, dry and wet. So the article is saying that the spider lives in both dry sclerophyll and wet sclerophyll, which does not seem to be what was intended. Note that the Garb 2004 paper says that the spider does not like damp. Unless I have misunderstood or missed something, I trust that the nominators will make sure that the word "sclerophyll" is used correctly with an adequate description of the habitat. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After two weeks of no reply, I have changed it to "dry sclerophyll" from "sclerophyll", which I guess is the presumed meaning. The issue is still not resolved. I think that as the nominators do not appear to know that sclerophyll can be dry and wet, then sclerophyll must be jargon unless I have missed something. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have the source, so I cannot check this. I am certainly aware that sclerophyll encompasses both dry and wet. You may be right to presume that redbacks cannot live in wet, but you might be wrong. If the source just said sclerophyll, I think we should stick to the source. User:Casliber? --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure it doesn't refer to wet sclerophyll as well - the wording in the source is sparse and unhelpful. I will try to find another source though may be difficult. Keeping at "sclerophyll" alone is more in keeping with the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed "dry" which I had added, so the line in the article is as before. The Wiki article says "Outside urban areas, the redback is more often found in drier habitats ranging from sclerophyll forest to desert, ..." If you are agreed that sclerophyll can be wet and dry then the sentence does not make sense. It is like saying "The spider likes dry habitats such as wet sclerophyll and dry sclerphyll". Of course, it is a contradiction to indicate that wet sclerophyll is a dry habitat, unless I have missed something. Garb 2004 says that the spider does not like damp. I am a bit disappointed that no one answered my comment on sclerophyll for two weeks considering the nominating statement for this FAC says that the nominators will reply promptly. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked and looked for any source which talks about any sort of natural environment for any sort of clarification on this without success. Having written many australian articles and being australian, I am familiar with the term and what it means. I can't confirm or deny it whether it means "dry sclerophyll" or "sclerophyll" and cannot second guess the source. The best I can do is wikilink what we have. Wet sclerophyll forest is still alot less wet than rainforest, so doesn't necessarily mean very damp -e.g. it gets burnt by bushfires etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has been considered, but discounted by at least one author - it was found in Adelaide 14 years after that city's founding so the theory is that it moved into urban haibtations after adapting really well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like it has been disproved by genetic analysis and confirmation that it is a separate species; see Risky mate search and male self-sacrifice in redback spiders. Adding some more detail would make the article clearer. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
update- have elaborated on discussions over whether introduced or not - does it read ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is more additional good material than I expected, and the two theories are presented with equal weight. I might be wrong, but I think that the new molecular evidence is fairly conclusive for the Australia being its native range. Is the older theory of the spider being introduced to Australia a fringe belief now? It would need to be consistent with the start of section which says "The redback spider's origins are uncertain ...". The 2004 Garb paper says that Australia is the presumed native range. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you have it right - alot of biology articles are less controversial, so in material online it is presented as an idea and then material is supplied to counter it. I hope that this is reflected in how we have worded it in the article (in that points raised rebuff it) - do you think this is enough or that there needs to be a closing statement that it is assumed native? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the riddle should be less of a puzzle. To show the sort of thing that might be clearer, I have amended the article to reduce the work of discussion here, and then anyone can rephrase it or change it back. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those changes look ok and help make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice find. I've read the article and added a short paragraph. Feel free to copyedit. But be careful of being too definitive - the ID was done in 1920 when the species were not well settled, and it does have behavioural differences, so it could well be katipo or similar.--99of9 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bites
Many if not most houses would have the toilet in a small square room either at the back of the property (opening to the outside) or in the garden. When I was a kid in the 1970s these were still seen sometimes, but are very rare now. See here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done I've wikilinked outhouse. 99of9 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I changed it to "virtual disappearance" earlier. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that - that was a good adjective to use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes them round and spikey (sphero-echinocytosis) - looking up spherocyte and echinocyte is moderately helpful but both link to specific conditions. These clls can't carry oxygen as well and could get clogged in the spleen as they can't get through it as easily. This has mainly been done in vitro so not sure how much dtail to go into. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think another name is crenated RBCs (crown-shaped); see RBC Morphology. I think it says that crenated RBC occurs in bee stings, snake bites and so on. We need to be careful applying the general to specifically the redback spider bite. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think mention of "deforms human red blood cells" could be removed or amended as it does not give many clues to an advanced reader and probably does not help general readers. It is rather too vague and does not explain crenation - I am not sure if crenation here is due to secondary osmotic changes in blood or a direct effect of the toxin on the RBC membrane or something else. If the toxin directly affects RBCs, I think that would be interesting. Data organisation may be better if this is on a medical page and dealt with in details there. Unfortunately, I doubt if this is my UK books, and I have not found my haematology books at the present time. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I might agree with you - it doesn't appear to be a phenomenon which has clinical significance but has only been observed in research experiments, so I am thinking might be best on latrodectism page too but will wait to hear what 99of9 thinks as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind if it gets moved, especially if applicable to all latrodectus species. 99of9 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The official CSL product information indicates it can be given IV. It looks like it is up to the discretion of the doctor to give it IM or IV. Geoff Isbister is an Emergency Department doctor who has written more than anyone on Emergency medical management of spider and snake bites etc. and has concerns IM might not be as effective. IM is easier for many people. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, after looking at a few more webpages, it sounds to me that the drug is packed in an ampoule for administration from a syringe im or iv. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've redlinked it - seems like a good topic for a general encyclopedia. It means saliva infused with tobacco by chewing it (Merriam-Webster), somewhat related to tobacco water. Since it's a bit tangential to the redback topic, I'm not sure it justifies a full explanation here. 99of9 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it different to Tobacco water? Snowman (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest, but the sources I've read indicate that "tobacco juice" is tobacco + saliva, and "tobacco water" is tobacco + boiled water. But I imagine their toxicological effects are similar, and the main difference would be hygeine! 99of9 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt if it is applied of hygiene reasons. I think it would be the pharmacological effect of the nicotine/tobacco extracts. User Casliber is likely to be able to find something from Australian sources. Snowman (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done It turns out the terms are interchangeable, so I've set up a redirect to tobacco water and have added some Australian sources to that article. 99of9 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea behind injecting strychnine appears to be to restore muscle function (I've found old redback bite sources which go on about how weak the muscles become). I assume the cocaine was used for its anaesthetic ability. 99of9 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know anything about this particular use for cocaine. It is dangerous and powerful stuff. I doubt if it is being used as a local anaesthetic here. I think it would be the pharmacological effects in a variety of synapses to oppose the toxic effects of the venom. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently old treatments look like that are plonked in the article, and to me it looks like the historical treatments are not put on proper context. Why are they not used now? Were they effective? What was there mode of action? If odd treatments are included, then I think it should be explained why they are not used now. How much detail to put in the article? I think we would be aiming for MedMos standards. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're not used now because there's an awesome antivenom that is super-effective, do we really have to spell out that this means you shouldn't bother cutting yourself up or injecting psychoactive drugs and rat poison? Some of your questions are interesting, but I haven't seen sources that formally studied how effective past treatment was, or its mode of action. Nevertheless, I still think it's interesting to the general reader, especially if they've heard rumours about the need to suck out venom, or if they want to understand the colonial history of living with these spiders. 99of9 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the essentials of the old treatments should be described with more clarity or not at all. An old treatment may be effective, but not as effective as newer treatments. The antiveonom is used for the more severe bites only. Any untrue myths of old treatment should be dispelled. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the sentence "Specific treatments for which evidence is weak or lacking are not recommended." to that paragraph of old treatments at the end, though was deliberating on placing it at the beginning. I think it is easier to mention old treatments and then place a sentence concluding they are not recommended than not putting anything at all. I am okay with the sentence going at the beginning of that para if that works better for others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the purpose of the new line. I would probably simply say that they are obsolete old treatments that have been superseded by modern drugs. Incidentally, what is wrong with completely deleting the whole paragraph on old treatments. I would guess that these old treatments would probably equate to old treatment of latrodectism in general. Perhaps, one source mentioning one treatment of one person in a newspaper report is too anecdotal to include. There are probably better sources. Actually, I anticipate that User Adrian J. Hunter review of the medical facets will be helpful, so I have been concentrating on other aspects of the spider for now. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a biologist, not a medic, and don't really have time for much beyond superficial copyediting, so please don't hold out on my account. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, excuse me, I jumped to the wrong conclusion when you added below that you saw my notice on WP:MED. Snowman (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not found out anything about this cocaine and strychnine injection. I think that it must be too obscure for the article. Apparently, all sorts of things have been used for widow spider bites. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specific treatments for which evidence is weak or lacking are not recommended." This is at the end of the treatments section. It is rather vague and does not say which of the historical treatments is lacking evidence. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I meant was (apart from antivenom) there are no recommended specific treatments...but the line has been removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had no idea what you meant, and I was aware of what you had written. Having just read your explanation, I think that I know what you meant now, but it needs to be phrased carefully, because opiates are used for pain of the spider bite and first aid measures seem to be well defined. Why not add back what you meant? Snowman (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main reason to add it was to highlight the fact that there is no evidence for any specific treatments apart from antivenom. However, the line "Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments for redback spider bites are useless or dangerous" has been added, which helps do the same thing and really clarify these treatments as absolutely non-current. Furthermore, upon thinking about it, I realise that doctors can be a little arbitrary in demarcating what is specific and what is general - i.e. pain relief vs magnesium etc. So have been happy with the other sentence and feel that this line might be labouring the point. On the other hand, if you think it helps it might slot in well immediately after or before this line "Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments for redback spider bites are useless or dangerous" - what do you think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I removed the last line because the first line superseded it to a large extent. The important thing about this section is that everyone is reasonably happy with it, and accept that there are other people want something slightly different. If you want your extra line in, then put it in. You could also include muscle relaxants as an old treatment, which seemed to be in favor in the 20th century prior to antivenom, with some presence in the literature and something that I think should be included to maintain balance. I find the section more bearable now that I have reworded and expanded it, but it was not worth the candle. I would like to remove a big chunk of this section on the grounds that the sources are too anecdotal. Snowman (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that User Casliber has added lines on this. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this might be better in the antivenom article as it is a general feature of all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a rather basic facet, but you might be right. It depends on the balance of how much detail to include on the technical aspects of the venom. The signpost to the anti-venom page may be adequate. I am glad that I raised this topic, because it would help to pitch the scope of the article. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The product information just says diluted and given via a vein. Generally if it has to be infused over a period it will specify in the product info, therefore I think it is just given in a syringe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. In an emergency, it would be much quicker to administer from a syringe. Snowman (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snowman do you think this is more of a general issue with all antivenoms and maybe is best placed on the parent page antivenom? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I raised this issue, the article did not have anything on how antivenom is made using horses, so there appeared to be a bigger gap then, than there is now. If there is nothing specific on new research to the redback spider anti-venom or antiveonom, then I think research could go elsewhere; however, some of this research sounds fascinating. I will strike this as resolved, but trust that if anything relevant is found then it can be discussed or added to the article. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears to be uncommon but they do - some info added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point - important as pressure immobilisation is standard when bitten by many poisonous creatures - added. I saw a general page about patient not moving alot but this is not mentioned in the more specific redback treatment pages, so I have not added that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read somewhere that pressing on a painful bitten area causes more pain, so if there is RS this can be added as another contraindication. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keeping the human victim still is in this protocol for ambulance crew. Here it appears keeping the bitten human still appears to be included in first aid, so it probably needs adding to the article. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay - question is where to slot it in in Treatment paragraph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like this is first aid, so it would go in a paragraph about first aid. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
upon re-reading I can see a place to add and so added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True - and it may be we are overmedicating people in Emergency Departments. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the treatment section says "In more severe bites (2–4% of cases),[80] the definitive treatment consists of administering redback antivenom", which makes the 20% number look out-on-a-limb. Snowman (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think that this could be simplified and shortened for the spider article leaving linked pages to explain the detail? Any comments. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the 6/56 is consistent with "about 20%", given the inherent noise in sampling small populations. Since the 20% was from "clinical experience", it might also be referring only to victims who present at the clinic. Perhaps the 2-4% is attempting to consider the proportion of all bites. Should we just say "a small proportion", and leave it to the readers' interpretation of the three sources? --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6/56 is about 10.7%. I think that the article should be informative and that "a small proportion" may not be particularly helpful being rather vague and somewhat subjective. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6/56 is 10.7 +/- 8.1% with 95% confidence. The upper end of that range is consistent with some other small number observation which concluded "about 20%". Anyway, I'll look further into this now. --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is now resolved. the "2-4%" and the "about 20%" (in abstract) / "less than 20%" (in text) were calculated the same way (antivenom usage reported by manufacturer / total number of bites), but their estimates for the number of bites were in extreme variance. We've now got "less than 20%" with a note about the variance, and the figures on which calculations can be based. The weak "less than 20%" is certainly consistent with the hospital stats, which themselves have significant uncertainty due to a small statistical sample. --99of9 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A range would be more informative, rather than less than 20%. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Range added now that the footnotes explain it in detail. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I guess we could do this - the obvious choice of page for greater detail is Latrodectism (which is undersized at present) - question is, how much do you think should be moved and how much remain to summarise? Where to draw the line can be tricky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it difficult to interpret "Hmm". The scope of a set of wiki articles is difficult balance here and I do not know the answers. My guess in a short answer would be to make this article to be like a textbook review rather than a journal review. I would think that medical stuff and statistics relevant to only the redback spider are relevant here. I am trying to think what is best for the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Hmm" means I am deliberating as well - we need to think of the individual items. I am ok with how things are now, though the latrodectism article clearly needs expanding but that is beyond the scope of this really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the inconsistencies I have highlighted? Snowman (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been thinking about this - the two most recent secondary sources we have are the 2011 Lancet article by Isbister and the CSL textbook (if I don't get that in the post by tomorrow I will go to the medical library at the hospital at lunch or something) and do some review of overall statements so we have the most up to date where possible. This will be sorted very soon. I am just having some thoughts on what should be where as I take prognosis to be long term and hence am thinking that discussing antivenom best not discussed in that section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ok with the 2-20% who require antivenom treatment being moved up to the treatment section. That makes sense to me. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if the article is going into too much detail and missing some of the important points - such as having adrenaline handy when administering anti-venom; see BNF page 36 under the heading "Snake bites and animal stings" for some general comments, but not specifically about the redback spider. I have started a discussion on the scope of the article under a separate topic below. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adrenaline has been added. I have substituted the word "rare". Snowman (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had to remove the strike out marks, because of a regression. My reasons for not using the word "rare" are above as before. The source says that anaphyaxis is rare and that serum sickness has a very low incidence. However, I have seen other papers give 5% to 10% for the incidence of serum sickness. Note that rare has a commonly understood definition that does not fit with the paper. Note that he reference is 2004 and hence old. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies - I must have missed the numbers the BNF use to define "rare" - I have never encountered that scale before. I have reworded to "very low" and attributed it to that summary again. I have looked and connot find a secondary source that is newer that specifically comments on rates of side effects - hence I cannot put one in if there aren't any. If you did see one then let me know. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen papers on serum sickness after antivenom treatment, and I plan to return to this topic later. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realise the lancet report has a summary of rates of reactions to antivenom - have removed all older material and substituted this - the older material's rates do not gel at all - and as this is newer and a secondary source it supersedes it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it's better not to re-explain the detailed medical mechanisms etc on every species page, hence my answer to your query on explaining nerve de-granulation. 99of9 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going on the LD50's on How Not To Die In Australia Part 2: Spiders a funnel web spider has a more potent toxin. I am not sure if this source is RS for the wiki, but I think some double checking is needed, because the Wiki article may be wrong. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say I am not seeing any information supporting this in any peer-reviewed literature and beginning to think we might be best in removing it. 99of9 have you seen anything else in peer-reviewed literature gelling with it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've slightly toned down the weight given to this claim due to its age (though since it was quoting a CSIRO research paper, I think it was reliable when claimed). I've also added some reliably sourced LD50s to quantify this lethality, both for the venom, and for pure alpha-latrotoxin. One thing you should check if you approve of... I converted the first LD50 from %total venom/mouse to (modern units) mg/kg based on the venom mass and mouse mass both given in the same article. At one level, this is just a unit conversion, but it edges toward OR, so you should see what you think. --99of9 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that there is any problem in presenting information in the Wiki article ←in a different way to that to that of the source. Wikipedians are always doing this. However, I have not checked your calculations. This line "... Some reports claim that the redback has the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider." now looks like wheesle words to me, you called it toning down. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ I think we're done with this one now that the sentence is gone. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that was subtle, but I see your point. The advice not to cut or suck is applicable to all bites, but technically wasn't in the scope of that document. I've replaced the source. Interestingly this one supports washing. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a case of reading the source and not jumping to conclusions about what it says. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added something. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added some material - there isn't much - one Review article which discusses two ten year retrospective studies which I then ref. One talks about reasons for the figure discrepancies but this didn't make into the Review so I didn't add (wasn't convinced of some points made either... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1993 study over a 10-year period would be too old for WP:MEDMOS, but even without considering MEDMOS it would be sensible to use up-to-date references and be cautious about the 1993 primary study. Also, all of the souses uses are rather old. As a result I think that the current paragraph on the symptoms in children seems suspect to me. Souses less than 3 to 5 years are recommended for medical issues on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There do not appear any more recent studies focussing on children. I would argue that old information is better than none. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if the 2013 Australian doctors' handbook on bites has anything? Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hopefully it will arrive soon. If not I will go to the hospital library and check Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be reasonable to pause this FAC until you get the 2013 book? Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be any day now. I will ring today a bit later if it doesn't arrive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My impression is that this FAC has paused until the 2013 handbook can be accessed, at least with regard to the clinical facets of the topic. It seems sensible to pause work on the clinical sections and restart when the key up-to-date 2013 handbook is used as a source. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed the postman today but have a parcel to pick up tomorrow. here's hoping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the book is over 300 pages, so it should be quite heavy. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is quite compact actually - some extra info on children added now. I am contemplating removing the earlier studies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the section on symptoms in the young is muddled. The first sentenced has one set of symptoms and the last sentence has another set of symptoms. I think that the section needs amendments and this is likely to involve selecting the most appropriate sources. I note that some of the source are primary sources and other quite old. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have footnoted all the older material - but was contemplating merely deleting it. I wonder whether it adds information or detracts as a whole. MEDMOS would suggest I delete it I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
mice, added --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reworded, see if it makes sense now. --99of9 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is a comment in one of the treatment summaries - will hunt it down and add in the morning - late here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Magnesium is already included. Calcium could be added as well. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This paper mentions that calcium has been used - the reference highlights that it was tried in mactans poisoning, not hasselti, so I am thinking it might be best on the latrodectism page. The same situation with benzodiazepines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Braitberg (2009) paper refers to muscle relaxants and calcium in redback spider bites. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
aaah ok, right, that and the Rauber paper put it in better perspective and now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been reworded. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done -> Signs and symptoms (this way around is more common usage) --99of9 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed - changed to "incidence" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prximal limb means upper arm or thigh (i.e. the bit proximal to the knee or elbow). clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, the thigh and upper arm are proximal parts of limbs. A "proximal limb" is the wrong phrase. It should be "proximal section (portion, part or zone) of limbs". A human upper limb is the whole arm. A human lower limb is the whole leg. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the sentence as it is repeated in the following two - and reworded slightly. Agree we shouldn't be using that video as a ref and have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the lancet article is about as recent as we have, and is a review/summary. Have used it more and added the conclusion on the antivenom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy with that addition - we can only add what we can verify with sources, but will have a look to see if there is any Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update - have a secondary source that summarises them. Listed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is beginning to have some symmetry. Does it have a venom to kill scorpions or other spiders? Does insects mean insecta? I recall reading that the black widow spider (of USA) has 6 (or was it 7) venoms each active against different taxa. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But here again there comes an issue with scope - the 2001 Sutherland book I just got (I went to the medical library to see if there was a copy of the 2013 book but found this instead - the library has the 2013 book on order, just like I have. I rang bioCSL and it is not out of stock so sent a reminder email) says that redback venom itself is little-studied, but is almost certainly very similar to others - one of the key studies to analyse the different toxins was on that of the Mediterranean black widow, so I am wary of going into too much detail here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2001 book is quite old, so it would be better not to use it too much. I wonder how much of it is superseded by the 2013 handbook. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They might have slightly different emphasis - the 2001 book has alot of natural history of spiders in it too, whereas the other one might be more strictly clinical. We'll see Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I expect the 2013 handbook will be up-to-date and detailed about clinical aspects. There might have been advances in the constituents of the venom after 2001, and I am not sure if this will be in the 2013 book or not. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very succinct - it does not discuss the constituents of venom other than to mention the main toxin Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We did not know what the book contained until now. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hasn't arrived yet. Am hoping they still have some to send....arrived now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wiki article mentions irritability as a presenting symptom already. I don't think the dilution is worth adding on the basis of this one case. Realistically doctors often dilute an injection so this is not an unusual procedure. Am still waiting for handbook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have noticed the ivi mode of administration in more articles after I added the case above. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that diluting it reduces side effects, so I think that the mode of administration over about 20 mins in an ivi is important. I think that it is being used more now. A web-search for "redback spider antivenom diluted" brings up a number or relevant pages. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dilution from 2001 Sutherland textbook added. I don't ave the 2013 one yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administering the drug slowly in an ivi remains a bit of a mystery. I wonder if the 2013 handbook would clarify it. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
page 209 of the 2013 handbook recommends diluting 1:10 into a 100ml bag of solution for adults and running in over 30 minutes. I winder whether this is too much detail for the article though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, this seems to be essential information and simplifies a lot of confusing information. It shows how much caution is needed in giving the venom. This route of administration also features in recent articles on the internet. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added something that would seem logical. It needs checking against the 2013 handbook and the citation added. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
checked and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that some papers, such as this one, don't actually define latrodectism. Missed the link/will read and try and ensure that our article matches consensus definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update - having considered this - no other papers or textbooks/handbooks talk about grading latrodectism, so I think that adding a grading scheme from one study is giving it undue weight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are probably other ways to make the clinical sections easier to read. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - have reorganised this partly along those lines. Still a tiny bit more to do. Just a little fiddly trying to align material It is arranged with local and regional and dependent radiation in one para, and systemic in the next para. The setence beginning "Some subjects with delayed symptoms may present with a characteristic sw...." could mark a new para as that is dependent effects, which are slightly different to the local/regional ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Footnote added, feel free to tweak. I don't think the lead needs modification, since it already qualifies "have been formally recorded". --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not seen that mentioned as such in a medical reference. I can have another look. Diagnosis is made on clinical grounds (as well as finding or seeing the spider!), which I thought the article covered. Will read again and think whether we need to make this point more prominently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nimorakiotakis and Winkel (2004) say that there is no laboratory test. This paper is already used as a source in the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad this exists - added now, also added some conditions which it has been mistaken for Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to supply some - I tried but the wikimarkup for a <ref> inside a <ref> broke the html. Does anyone know if it's possible? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the format of the footnote on the "European Storm Petrel" Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, thanks. I've now implemented this, and expanded the detail in one of the footnotes. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the 2013 handbook is very succinct - written in point form and does not identify a rate of adverse reactions, only what to do in case of one. I will assess the next most recent/secondary source and add The 2004 GP guidelines are the latest ones which have some comment - describing incidence as "very low". the lancet and 2013 book call the antivenom "safe" but do not discuss further. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wording has been changed to rare. The ref says "very low" for serum sickness, which is not the same as rare. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
now changed to "very low" and attributed - difficult to really use another subjective term. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously it's not a magic potion. The source had "typically", which I've now added here.--99of9 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it means "typically not affected" and I will write that in. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a bit uncertain that such a bold statement has a 1998 old source. I have found a 1993 paper of a case of a Premature labor precipitated by red-back spider envenomation. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is nothing to confirm this in the 2013 handbook, then I think that this should be deleted. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recall seeing something in a secondary source that I wish I added when I saw it - it is not in the Lancet article nor in the 2013 handbook. I will replace when I see it again Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put it in hidden text, so that the line can be restored when a more up-to-date ref can be found. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author of the 2013 two-vial source (White) published a study in 1998 saying that 75% of cases at that time only used one vial. So I guess practice changed sometime between 1998 and 2013... perhaps it was after December 2009. I guess it's right to go with the more recent study, but if you like we could note that one vial used to be the standard. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is some uncertainty here. I have removed the lines on dosing until this is clarified. This needs to be sourced from up-to-date works. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the 2013 book now - it cites the manufacturer stating 1 vial but states that the current treatment guidelines is two vials. I have now put this in. It also recommends IV over IM but states the latter is used as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be sensible to put the manufacturer's recommendations in, otherwise the article only mentions the off-label use. Can the 2013 book be a source to summarize the recent discussion on the dose and route of administration? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2013 represents consensus use, hence I do not think that "off-label" is an accurate term. Have moved some discussion material in footnote. I have added the official PI into a footnote - this is noted in the 2013 handbook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the terminology in the UK this would be off-label use. This means that there are fewer possibilities to claim from the manufacturer should a problem occur. Many drugs for children are not tested in children are used off-label according to experience using the drug. I think that I would put the manufactures exact instructions in the "Antivenom" section, and explain the variance (not sure where). Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put the manufacturer's instructions in the treatment bit - and have tried to leave only non-treatment-related material in the antivenom section. I have placed the bit about 500 units of antivenom in the footnotes as it is a bit meaningless really except to doctors Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's had a fair bit of reorganization now - I don't think there's anything repeated and it is structured better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the Rawson and video references. One other accidental source error we are chasing up. It is very difficult to get some information to satisfy comprehensiveness criteria without resorting to some older sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding sources: I would recommend a systematic checking of sources particularly for the medical sections. The first source I checked this morning was a 2001 source from an out-of-date version of the Australian antivenom handbook (I have listed this problem above). Of course, the new 2013 version of the handbook is much expanded. Snowman (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also questioning two non-medical sources under "References" below. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both removed now - see below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provisional impression 2. The bites section has had a number of changes and a number of old sources have been removed. Some topics are still being discussed. I think checking the extraction of facts from sources needs to be completed. I think that a final phase of reviewing and copy-editing would be needed to ensure that the article is readable and has not gone off at a tangent anywhere. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wording changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rearranged it a little, but it could probably be written better. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provisional impression 3. Support - based on FA criteria 1b 1c 1d 1e, 2a 2b, and 4. As far as I am aware, the content is up to FA standard, but I am only aware of the basics of this topic. I have not focused on MoS. I would think that some reviewers might like to finalise there reviews prior to FA status being awarded, so I hope that the FA is not closed too abruptly. Snowman (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have left a memo on User:Adrian J. Hunter talk page, because he expressed a wish finish his review, presumably by looking at the bites section. Snowman (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added - for some reason the PI does not say it is in 1 ml - just need to fetch that from where I read it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
replaced these refs with Lancet ref (which is secondary source, and notes limited evidence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly good to have the Lancet, given that it makes recommendations as well. However, I've added the primary references back as well, because that will save readers having to go via Lancet to find out about the original studies. This is all consistent with WP:PRIMARY. --99of9 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Steatoda spiders cause steatodism, and not latrodectism, so the above line seems odd. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree - just revisiting the latest sources to revise this - this source will be removed in a few hours reviewed this and removed - wording and features different and explained better in medical sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have taken the first ref and statement as it is way too low and this paper is NZ-based and really about other aspects of the spider (ecological not medical). Am double checking some other secondary sources for incidence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the incidence can be expressed by an estimated range, which is more representative of a range of RS. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done. --99of9 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2013 provides a very succinct and well-laid out summary, which is a little spartan in places. Using the 2011 Lancet Review article and some other bit should provide the most comprehensive and up to date summary. Having read both several times I am getting a better idea. Moving to a subpage might complicate attribution history. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds optimistic. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two handbooks are 2011 and 2013 now (I replaced the old with the new edition yesterday. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-looked at latest secondary sources instead and used them (interesting as malaise is dropped as a symptom, probably as it is so nonspecfic really)- I can't find the lymph node note in the secondary sources so have removed that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lymph node swelling does crop up in a number of papers, so that is something to look out for. General malaise is non-specific. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioned in Jelinek 1997 - added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A rate of 25% (or 1 in 4) is mentioned for systemic involvement in Jelinek 1997. Rates of hospital and antivenom vary widely. Lancet 08 has no figures. Not sure if we will get any other figures from secondary articles. have added that almost all resolved within a week, and 1/2 ro 2/3rds will get significant pain and/or systemic envenomation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This and Jelinek 1997 have some info - which I have placed in venom section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The terms "antibody" and "immunoglobulin" are syonymous and used interchangeably - teh source says "antibody" - it is IgG but I agree I need to find a source to explain why source added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... but both "immunoglobulin" and "antibody" are not synonymous with IgG. How do you know horses do not make IgA, IgE, IgD nor IgM? It is probably mainly polyclonal IgG, but I think that it would be best to say "polyclonal antibody" as in the new reference, which have avoided saying IgG. As far as I understand it such polyclonal antibody from horses is called "antiserum". You can go on to talk about the purification process and what is in the anti-venom. I think that the purification of the redback venom is a lot different to that of the black widon antivenom, so the difference could be relevant to the article. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the IgG then as it is possibly tangential - it can be discussed in detail on the antivenom article. The sources and article are discussing redback antivenom so I do not understand why you mention black widow at this point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, I added another topic, which I probably did not explain very well. I simply was saying that there are interesting differences in how redback antivenom and black widow antivenom are manufactured, as it is something reviewers might see when looking through references. It might be interesting to explain the manufacture of reback antivenom in more detail, but I suspect that it may be too much detail for the article. The antibodies in redback antivenom are more purified than in the black widow antivenom, hence there are more allergic reactions to the black widow antivenom, which is not used much in USA (as far as I understand it). Snowman (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaah ok, I understand now - by the looks of things, Antivenom could be tripled in size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Expansion is possible. The black widow anti-venom sounds awfully impure, but that is off-topic. On-the-other-hand redback spider venom is quite pure (and quite safe), and this is on-topic. Let's concentrate on the basics for now; for example, have you got anything to say something like "most people get better" to start the prognosis section. I am thinking about adding a bit more about serum sickness. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny how easy it is to miss obvious stuff - but it needs to be referenced. Will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have briefly added the F(ab')2 fragments, which I thought was relevant, after looking at a number of articles. It would need some refining and enhancements and there are more sources. I thought that the new image of the split antibody gives an hint of the complex science. I would appreciate feeback before doing adding a little more, perhaps on why the split antibody fragment is safer. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in two minds about this - I did think this was detail better left to the antivenom article when in body of text, but pictorially..don't know. Good to have something different to a psider photo to adorn the article. I will ask a third opinion as I am awaare this FAC has been open for a long time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had hoped that the FAC would have been completed in October, but there were some prolonged discussions on some straight forward but important issues for a week or two, but these seem irrelevant now following deletion of some doubtful lines and sources. Also, perhaps User Casliber was busy editing articles related to astronomy as well as focusing on this FAC, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I suspect that extensive simultaneous article editing work elsewhere is likely to have prolonged this FAC. Nevertheless, considering how much of the article originally relied on old sources, I probably underestimated how much work was required. I should think that it would be worth keeping the FAC open, perhaps for a few more weeks or however long it takes, for a final phase of copy-editing and checking the sourcing mainly of the bites section. I have asked an editor for an opinion on the bites section. Also, I expect that User:Adrian J. Hunter will consider the bites section at an appropriate time and complete his excellent review. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to 2011 ref, and millilitres changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, no - these would be the same thing. One dilutes the antivenom (minimum would be 1:10, but in practice one would just get a 100 ml bag. You then hang it up on a drip stand and let it run in at the desired rate. I do not have the book with me right now but will double check when I get home The exact wording is "For I.V. administration - dilute redback spider antivenom up to 1 in 10 or more...dilution to 100 ml is often used in adults. To avoid fluid overload, use smaller volumes in small children and adults with compromised cardiac function" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like it can be given diluted with a syringe or in a small bag of fluid, but it is not entirely crystal clear. I will reword the line slightly. Is there anything in an Australian pharmacopoeia or drug data compendium? Snowman (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'd be unwieldy in a syringe, which would have to be pretty large! This sort of situation would always use a bag I thought. I feel this is getting a bit too specialised for the article really and going to more detail than is needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was injected using a syringe, then a dilution of 1 in 10 would result in a volume of 1.5 ml x 10 = 15 ml, which would be easy to administer using a 20 ml syringe into an ivi line or butterfly. If you had a bag of intravenous solution, then it could be diluted in 100 ml, but no one has suggested putting 100 ml in a syringe. The biggest syringe that I have seen used for iv injections is 50 ml. The nominators have opted to go for a detailed discussion of the medical aspects of the bite here, and I think that adding the details of the administration of this drug is consistent with the rest of the detail. At this juncture, I see no point in skipping this information providing there is good RS to back it up. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This book (Toxicology Handbook 2013: section 6.1: page 486.) confirms dilution in a bag of fluid, but also mentions the im route. Does the Australian handbook say similar. Snowman (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References
What you see at the bottom are feedback comments - we see them on newspapers etc. They can be safely discounted. The Mike Gray mentioned who is a staff member of the Australian Museum (and is involved in their websites) is the author of a major revision of another genus of spiders so is one of Australia's authorities on spiders, hence I would say the Australian Museum pages are reliable. Raven worked at Qld Museum - not sure who is at Msueum Victoria Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that I must have browsed the Australian Museum website and connected the wrong webpage above, so I have now changed it to the same page used in the article. Okay, lets assume the museums are RS for the Wiki, because of the authority of these museums. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done The Australian Museum page has altered content since I used it! I found another article on the web which also uses AustMus as a reference for that fact... Anyway, I've now switched it to a stable source - Andrade studies "penultimates" which are instar 4 for males and instar 5-6 for females. I don't think it's really OR to infer the total. --99of9 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, there is no need for you to put a big tick when you have done something, because I will strike the initial line when the issue has been resolved. For consistency and clarity, I have reformatted the colour of some of your comments to be consistent with the first colour that you used. This will not change the meaning of anything that you said. The "violet" colour is quite light and has poor contrast and would probably cause some readers visibility problems. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"That's not a big tick, this is a big tick ✔." I switched to violet because indigo was too similar to visited links, but I'm not fussed.--99of9 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please continue to provide updates here in the normal way, but may I suggest that you choose one suitable colour for your text and keep to it for this review. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that the line has been changed today to "In 1893 one doctor even reported treatment using injections of strychnine and cocaine.[12]". I think that this shows that the topic can not be comprehensibly described from this single source, so I would recommend deleting it with the whole section on historical treatments. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not happy with deleting the section. I do not want to narrow the article to be a medical article, I think it's important to include the breadth of experience with redbacks throughout history. Although some readers will just want to know how to treat their own bites, others will be looking for authenticity in the historical novel they are writing, others will revel in the gruesome and painful methods of old to reflect on how far we've come. I think we can serve them all. --99of9 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to keep this section, then I think that you will need some better sources. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found a source for the following addition: "research published in 1973 showed that cocaine actually strengthens the effects of the similar venom from black widow spiders". However, I think we were lucky in this case that further research has been done with cocaine on a similar spider venom. --99of9 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intuitively, it looks like there is something wrong with your new line or its context in the article, so I would ask you to double check this. I see it like this, but I might be wrong: when all the neurotransmitter has been explosively released by the effects of the spider venom, then there is little left in the nerve and so the nerve has insufficient neurotransmitter to work normally. Cocaine is likely to help the jeopardized nerve function slightly more effectively. A lot is known about the pharmacology of the black widow spider bite. Further, this is only one of the types of nerve terminals that the spider venom affects. I think that the section on old treatments should be significantly improved or deleted. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no expert, but quoting the abstract: "VLm [the venom] is an agonist in this preparation but fails to induce any response in denervated or reserpinized cat spleen. Cocaine potentiated and phentolamine antagonized the responses induced by VLm." my plain reading indicates that cocaine makes the neurotransmitter release even more favourable. I'm not really clear what you're looking for in this historic treatment section - are you wanting historic postulated medical mechanisms for the ligatures and black coffee? Or are you looking for modern evidence of how good/bad those treatments would be? Also, are you sure an article about a spider and how people used to treat its bites needs mechanisms which may not even have been known at the time of treatment? --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that you have got this wrong and this is reflected in the new line about cocaine. I think that this is obscure stuff that is not within the scope of the article. The Wiki "Cocaine" article says; "Biologically, cocaine acts as a serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor, also known as a triple reuptake inhibitor (TRI)." There are a number of points at which drugs can act on the synapse. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your hypothesis, but I can't see any other way of reading the experimental conclusion "Cocaine potentiated the responses induced by Latrodectus mactans venom". Mechanistically they are talking about it helping the release of neurotransmitter, not about the reuptake process, but there is an extra paragraph about indirect mechanisms if you know more about this than me. Their raw data is also very clear - see their figure 2. --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cocaine is a re-uptake inhibitor. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said it wasn't. How do you interpret their conclusion: "Cocaine potentiated the responses induced by Latrodectus mactans venom" and why do you think it is inconsistent with the text I have added to the article? Or are you disputing their peer-reviewed findings?--99of9 (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The experiment on cat spleen shows what neurotransmitter was involved, and I do not doubt what the research paper says. Lets go back to the Camperdown newspaper article, which says that the patient's legs were benumbed. The OED says that benumbed means "Rendered torpid or numb; deprived of strength or the power of motion by a chilling influence." To me this implies that the venom had caused weakness - a late symptom of envenomation. It sounds to me that his legs had become weak and this would be likely be due to failure at the synapse (total or near total nerve degranulation) caused by the venom. Nerve conduction was enhanced (synapse enhancement) in the experiment by the venom, so there is no simple analogy with the experiment and the condition of the patient (synapse failing). Cocaine probably would potentate the early phase of envenomation (when the synapses contain granules), but it was used in a phase of muscle weakness (total or near total nerve degranulation) in the patient featured in the old newspaper article. What if the indication for cocaine injections was weakness? - Perhaps, cocaine could enhance the synapse and reverse his weakness, which sounds therapeutic. I am hoping the User Cas Liber will be able find out more about this, because he would have access to the relevant old Australian medical books and up-to-date research papers. I may have this mechanism wrong, but I am sensible enough not to jump to conclusions based on an experiment on cat spleen. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will ask for input from the medicine wikiproject to see if anyone thinks there is value in keeping it or there is consensus for its removal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw Cas' note at WT:MED about this.

I think this paragraph should be included. The history of medical treatments is interesting and encyclopedic. (Actually, I thought it was more interesting than the rest of the treatment section, which is pretty much three paragraphs of "antivenom = good", which is not news to me.) Wikipedia isn't a medical treatment manual. It's good and valuable to have information beyond the modern medical POV. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of medical treatments may have some encyclopaedic value when sourced from adequate information in reliable sources. I would like to know what you thought of the current sources for the history section. Did you have a look at the sources? I hope you revisit this page, because I would like to understand your point of view better. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO all of those sources are RS for the fact that these treatments were used or recommended by someone at some stage. That history is all the paragraph is really about. IMO it doesn't need to be medicalized beyond that, but if there is more RS medical info on these treatments, then I'm happy to accommodate it if you feel it's necessary. Also just noting for the record that a few users at the Australian noticeboard have a similar view to User:WhatamIdoing. --99of9 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that User WhatamIdoing has chosen to tell us here that he is not watching this page in his only edit on this page, so far. I hope that he revisits this pages and that the can tell us what he thought of the sources. User Kaldari says below that the historical section should be dropped. Two views on the WP:Medicine talk page are that the historical treatments should not be in the same section as the "Treatmetns" section. I have added some factual information about the sources on the WP:Medicine talk page and the WP:Australia noticeboard. The logical thing to do is also ask the WP:Spiders project, so I will leave a message about the dilemma there. I note that User Casliber has asked WP:Medicine, User 99of9 has asked WP:Australian and also WP:Spiders. I hope that a consensus arises about this section on historical treatments. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. (I'm a "she", not a "he".)
I think these elderly, third-person primary sources are (barely) adequate to the task of saying that this happened. You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources occasionally, even in FACs.
If this were primarily an article about spider bites, I'd agree that historical treatments should go under ==History== and any experimental treatments should go under ==Research directions==, because in a 'disease' article, ==History== means history of the disease. But this is primarily an article about an organism, and ==History== here would be the history of the spider, not the much narrower subject of the history of human experiences of and responses to spider bites. It would be silly to create a one-paragraph section called ==Historical treatments for bites==, and it would be worse to dump it in the existing ==History== section, which is all about genetics and classification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the hope that the FAC will be finished within about one week or less, I have found some more content for this section and re-written parts of it to strike a balance with various reviewers and nominators wishes - not removing too much and providing some more refs to emphasize caution. Two people on the WP:Medicine supported a separate section for for old treatments and I have kept that group happy as well. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ok with a separate section - much better than deleting IMO. Thanks for rewording. --99of9 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see if I can get hold of the other report - the primary source. I expect you're right that the scope was exaggerated to "any other creature", and was probably (given the title) originally limited to Australian land creepy-crawlies, but it's worth finding out. --99of9 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now removed that sentence. The scope was indeed exaggerated by the Canberra Times, but the actual scope of the source report was comparing the redback to "any known reptile", which is not really a useful comparison in this context anyway. --99of9 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This shows one of the pitfalls in using a newspaper as a source. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a popular book of household information saying that this is how to treat spider bites is a self-fulfilling cause of some people treating spider bites that way. So I think it reliably supports the text we use it for ... that tobacco juice was a treatment used in the 1890s. I agree it wasn't necessarily doctor recommended, but it wasn't only doctors that treated spider bites in those days. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry 99of9, I have removed this as it pertains to spider bites in general and not redbacks - also am a little uneasy I have not seen it in other sources. Might be more discussion for spider bites in general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with it being more general. Given that the majority of medically siginifcant spider bites are redbacks, I'd argue that an Australian recommendation for treating spider bites in general is automatically reasonably pertinent to redbacks, but it's not a strong opinion, and I agree it would be more important if a source specified "redback".--99of9 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a bit concerned that this now features on another Wiki article, because I think that the 1894 book does not fit the criteria for a RS on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ You have removed this now. I agree that if this is all we have on cocaine mechanisms, it's better to leave out the mechanisms and just state that it was used. --99of9 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ removed --99of9 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the line and two refs as have not seen this observation repeated elsewhere in other sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed - see preceding entry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a book, it's a web site. --99of9 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, my mistake. I might have been looking at the book in ref 8 and accidentally went down to 9 (this ref) by mistake. Sometimes, I get distracted with the phone ringing or people talking to me. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit like with wikiproject birds, there was discussion on another FAC to standardise how we report names, hence if something is "Red Backed" we then hyphenate it when we write it on wiki. As far as the "great suffering", I will substitute a medical source which should be used (will double check the Lancet one and some others as we shouldn't be using the newspaper for the medical bit). I have to run off and do chores and can attend to this in a few hours' time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A better source and wording added for "great suffering" - removed duplicated note on fatalities Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the capitalization of "Red Backed" says it was meant as a name rather than a simple description. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...but the article says "red-backed" and the reference says "Red Backed". There is different capitalization and one is hyphenated. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We originally had it exactly as the source did, but Jim's review below suggested grammatical consistency between the names instead. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... but the current version of the spelling and capitalisation is not sourced. 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
IMO there's no difference in spelling, just grammar. In any case, I could argue with either of you, but I'm really not fussed which way this falls - I think both are justifiable, depending on whether sourcing or grammatical compatibility are more important to you. Perhaps you and User:Jimfbleak can sort out which version you want. --99of9 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On thinking about this, I have removed "red-backed" as really only a spelling variation rather than a sustantively different name - if this were a bird article, bird names have seen the gains and losses of hyphens and words stuck together or split (Fairy-wren vs fairywren) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2010 Biological Invasions paper says New Plymouth is established. I've moved the location of the citations. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have been trying to replace all these refs with newer ones - two to go Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded and added an inline attribution to the quote. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
", the bite can cause "great suffering" (Dr F. Tidswell)[103]". Not conventional. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this has been removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got them - formatted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a link to the Trove item page, but the original is in a paywall archive. The source fact upon which I base my text is: "The most recent release, "Red Back Fever," was recorded in Sydney with English producer Steve James. Its title takes its name from the killer Australian Red Back spider." --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Red Back Fever album that I have been talking about by The Angles was produced by Terry Manning. Which album are you talking about? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think everything's fine. Both Steve and Terry are listed on the credits for your stub's source. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying to figure which of the newer summary refs states it which other species it can be used for. I suspect they just say "other species" rather than list them. I think that is sufficient for this article, though the information on which species it has worked for might be good for the latrodectism article. Anyway, it is late here so will look for a few more minutes before going to sleep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Culture section;
The track list mentions "Red Back Fever", and since it's sometimes called a "Red Back Spider", I think from an Australian band that's a clear enough indication that the two are linked (especially given the spider image you mention below when they re-release one of the tracks as a single). The actual lyrics don't mean much to me, so I can't confirm whether they're talking about the syndrome, and I can't see any extra reliable secondary material. --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not heard of the illness being called red back fever - is there a RS for that? The actual title of the tracks do not seem to be anything to do with spiders. One of the album covers is a man with a stick, so the spider may have been only a pun or incidental. To me the redlink to the Angel's album says that is is not significant. Do we really want to see a mention of every animal that appears on a record cover in Wiki species pages? Is this within the scope of the article? Is is trivia? A famous LP with a cockatoo on its cover does not feature on a Wiki species pages; see Bella Donna (album). Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lyrics to the song "Red Back Fever" are www.songlyrics.com. It is not about spiders. I think that the LP name is bit of a red herring. I do not know why there is a picture of a red back spider on the CD cover. Snowman (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found an extra music industry ref (Billboard magazine) saying that the album takes its name from the spider. I think this is good enough to include, and makes it a clearer link between the topics than just having a cockatoo on the cover. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made a new stub for the Angle's LP Red Back Fever. When I was looking details for the Stub, I did not see any connections to to spider except for the spider images on two of the later album covers. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my answer to the point above. It is a pretty prominent international music industry magazine. It seems very reliable about music topics. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I have just noticed a picture of a redback spider on the inner sleeve. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That track was also on the Red Back Fever album we already refer to. I don't think it has special relevence to the spider, because the song they were covering was already in circulation from another source. They just put a spider pic on the case when they released it as a single. --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On reflection, I do not think that this should be included; however, the Wiki article does seem to be imbalanced to mention one record cover, but not another. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is a country singer that is not well known outside country music circles. I suspect he would satisfy general notability guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be fun to make a Stubs for Slim Newton's LP and EP both called "Redback on the toilet seat" and on the Hadley label. It would be fair-use to put an image of the EP record cover showing the spider for the infobox image. The original vinyl LP has a picture of SN holding his guitar standing outside a wooden outside toilet hut. The stub could be wiklinked in the redback spider article. "DYK that the country music singer SW's album called "Redback on the toilet seat" featured a comical drawing showing a impossibly large redback spider on a toilet seat". Snowman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My personal preference is to leave redlinks as bait for someone who's more interested than me in the related topic. So I've linked Redback on the Toilet Seat. But if anyone is keen or wants to take the bait, go for it. I notice you've already put together something simple for Red Back Fever, nice. --99of9 (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first one is clearly notable - the next three are very obscure and might struggle to fulfil general notability guidelines. I would add if a secodanry source discussed, but I think the state cricket team is notable enough to add on a primary (though secondary would be better), which has been done - it is high profile Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other teams have Wiki pages, so they are probably known to some extent. In the UK some of the club football sides are extremely prominent in the news. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Local district rugby is a very minor sport in Melbourne. Need to think about what and how to include. For instance, for the top division of Victorian_Rugby_Union, none of the clubs have webpages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, there are many of them! Would like to get some sort of summary or note but we are a bit hamstrung by sourcing policies. I will think about what to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we're allowed to stop when we think they no longer have significance enough to affect the topic at hand - the cultural impact of redbacks spiders. So far everything we've listed is something that many Australians have would potentially come into contact with, apart from the aboriginal use, and the ultralight plane. The broader interest in those are justified by the secondary sourcing. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, I should be clearer; it is worth just saying something like; "it is used in the name of many sports teams especially in Australia." I do not know much about this, but I have found many sports teams called "redback xyz team" by internet searches. Would this be common knowledge in Australia? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't object to that, it's clearly true, but I don't have a simple way of sourcing it. I don't think it's common knowledge (I didn't know it), but I doubt it would surprise anyone. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd gladly put a sentence like that in - but I suspect it would be removed without a source even though perfectly obvious in a basic google search. So I am saving myself the trouble of seeing it cut out now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, we're a little hamstrung by lack of secondary sources discussing these - I have heard of and owned blundstone boots but not heard of this range. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Redback Boot Company NZ - there is a picture of a redback spider on the website. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a brief sentence including a secondary source, and created a simple stub for the company. For a time these boots were standard issue for the army. I couldn't find a secondary reference explaining the connection to the spider, so have had to link directly to their webpage.--99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great find. That is a perfect picture for the cultural impact section. Added. I haven't checked the source myself, but it looks legit. --99of9 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When searching possible problem issues for FACs, I sometimes find some surprises and finding this was one of the surprises. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, the hut is an outside toilet; see theguardian.com and bigthingsofoz. Snowman (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do to - I think ending with a humorous song and a giant redback statue is quite an ending Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

I hadn't thought about that - "guard" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that this was fixed after another reviewer pointed this out. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just the year would be fine, I think Snowman (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means Deck (building) --99of9 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not actually in a house, so I have put garden deck. I hope that has the same meaning outside the UK. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're never *in* a house, but they're almost always attached to a house. On the other hand, they're also almost always next to a garden, so garden is fine if it helps the UK understand. --99of9 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Venomous Australian critters, volume 94... A few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me?

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • easily recognisable—recognised?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the sperm is then stored in spermathecae, organs of the female reproductive tract, and can be used to lay several round white egg sacs.—how can the sperm be used to lay anything, needs rephrasing
✔ see how it reads now. 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • a colleague of his.—his colleague
hmmm, but the latter implies to me his one and only colleague, whereas the former is one (possibly of many) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a colleague? Although you could probably justify his anyway. You don't name a species after the tea-person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the latter dismissed the former—yuk...
used their names instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • though confirmed—missing word?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • red-striped spider,[7] red backed spider,[13] red spot spider,—hyphenation
If I remember right, I used the exact names used by the sources. Should I correct their grammar? 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I would. looks inconsistent as it stands, and it's your prose... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hyphenated them now for consistency - as we could argue that our hyphenating rules would be applicable... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • deep black colour... light brown in colour,—"colour" redundant
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The vertical strands serve two purposes, it snares prey and small insects and can be lifted in the air, and secondly acts as a trip wire to alert the spider to the presence of prey or threats—"the strands... it snares... acts" plural noun becomes singular half way through
whoops - pluralised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • captions—you don't need article name in captions, it's assumed to be what the images are of unless otherwise stated
organism name removed in captions - bar the baby one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ''though do need relatively— missing word?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • N-3-methylbutyryl-O-(S)-2-methylbutyryl-L-serine 3)—why the detached bold 3
Good find. It's probably an abbreviation used to refer to that molecule throughout the original paper - I'll check when I'm inside the paywall. 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ Done Ok, that was it. I've removed the 3 and corrected the markup for accurate chemical nomenclature.99of9 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 2 vials IV is administered followed by an additional 2 vials if there is no response after 2 h—spell out the twos
spelled out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • West End Redbacks. self.—"self-published" better
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No further queries, and Snowman's concerns seem to be on the way to resolution, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Adrian J. Hunter[edit]

I don't normally review, but I saw this mentioned at WP:MED, couldn't resist a read, and thought I might as well offer some suggestions.

Lead

linked to wiktionary definition as more concise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is "while" - female begins eating male's abdomen during thw Act.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charming! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed - much better idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with former - maybe "injection" helps illustrate it for reader mentally.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomy and naming

trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done (why didn't I see that particular wording before...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done - both refs can go after the comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done - not too fussed on order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Description

The source reads "The red marking at first appears as a small spot, then, as the spider becomes older it assumes a series of dots, and these eventually merge into the characteristic broad red stripe", which I think supports my text. Most modern descriptions don't give blow by blow accounts of development, so this is just the best I've found. I consider it pretty reliable on this kind of point because the author was a fellow of the entomological society. 99of9 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the above quote about juvenile spiders near the end of the 1907 article. The 1907 newspaper article does not mention the white lines of juvenile spiders, so the 1907 description looks inconsistent with what is currently source 17. As far as I am aware, conflicting sources need careful mention on the Wiki. The 1907 article describes adult spiders near the beginning of the article with "... and the Australian species a broad longitudinal bar running nearly the entire length of the abdomen, with frequently small lateral spots or patches." I am puzzled by the lateral red spots described in the 1907 paper and I note mention of these spots is mysteriously excluded from the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies, I completely missed that sentence. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is frustrating as some of the more "guidebook/identification" type articles like the museum ones are fairly brief and do not discuss colour variants. I've seen all-black redbacks in my laundry occasionally (I must have found 30-40 in this and my last house I've lived in!), and have only seen it mentioned in a couple of sources. I do recall seeing something about lateral spots somewhere else and will take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Help me understand what's in conflict? I believe that juveniles have both white lines and stripes broken into spots. Just like the picture we have of a juvenile. Just because the sources chose to mention different aspects, doesn't make them conflicting. I'm not sure about the lateral spots. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two descriptions of the spider in the two references are different and both the juvenile and adult spiders are described in both articles. One does not mention white lines on juveniles and the other does not mention lateral spots of adults. The article has a selection some aspects of one article and some aspects of another journal to form an account of the of a spider's appearance that is not in-line with either reference separately. If there is variability in spider appearance, then this can be acknowledged and incorporated in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the female goes through so many instars, I have no problem with (and have seen) grey spotty spiderlings and immature ones as photographed. I suspect Rainbow is right on the other though it is weird that this development is not mentioned anywhere else and am a bit confused. It is very late here and I am going to sleep to think about this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To update, I've removed the line in question, mainly as I have not seen it discussed anywhere in newer sources, which seems odd really. Given this is 106 years old, I would have thought someone would have written something similar in the meantime. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecology and behaviour

ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all for now. I hope to continue later this weekend, though I'm busy with work so no promises. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great – apart from ongoing discussion about the description, all my above suggestions are nicely resolved. I made a bunch of minor tweaks myself that I assumed would be uncontroversial, but please let me know if there are any objections. Continuing...

your copyedits look ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecology and behaviour

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
they also move around the web, but in cooler months are more in the funnel and move less. elaborated/clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
omitted --99of9 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is as a potential mate - it is supposed to not lead on from the previous. Might need a rejig amd will think about how to do it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not anomalous - trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life cycle

Hadn't thought of it like that - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so but am not entirely sure - quite possibly as they only live 2-3 years. Will try and find some info to confirm one way or the other Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see Distribution and habitat is currently undergoing editing, so I'll leave it there for now, and return during the week. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I've been absent for so long. I've made some more suggestions below. I'll go through ==Bites== over the next day or two, then check whether all my comments are resolved, and if so, I'll support on criterion 1(a). (Please ping me if I become the last reviewer awaiting comment.) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distribution and habitat

The Forster95 ref covers this whole argument - but will see if I can access the original statement by Raven and Gallon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I agree - this suggested rewording makes it more listy, which I don't think is a good thing... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, my attempt at tightening didn't really work. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, this video appears to show them in a house...but I wonder if it's been staged. Will double check the refs on this....as my personal experience gells with yours.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not worried about a counter-example, as I didn't meant to imply they never occur indoors, just that it seems surprisingly rare. Just thought a source somewhere might mention it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frustrating - as sources generally list places that are not inside houses, but do not explicitly say they are not (or only rarely) found inside houses Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, and thanks for checking. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "The Entomology Department of CSIRO..." as it was the Publicity Officer of the department, hence we can assume he was making a departmental statement... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that reads nicely. Done. --99of9 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am perplexed as I think the wrong source was added or one was omitted somehow - 99of9 added this one. Many cirtters from non-English speaking countries have English as well as their own language names. Will have a look and alert once addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, this was the addition by an IP, and I can't se anything in any sources pertaining to this so it goeth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reversed paras and added a short intro para. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh nice, that's more than I'd hoped for! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural impact

now "drew popular attention to redbacks" --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you've drawn my attention to it again, I'm considering cutting this info, because I can't find a web reference to it. The lyrics on the web seem different. I've asked for help at Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Red_back_fever. --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read through all the lyrics for that album, and cannot find anything about hand-sized spiders, so have now cut the sentence back to a simple album name. I'll keep track of any followup on the band talk page or from the editor who inserted that line.--99of9 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good. If the lyric does turn out to be legit, something like "... described sightings of impossibly large redbacks" might provide clarification. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made some minor tweaks myself, nothing I expect to be controversial ([2]). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They look good, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks 99of9 and Cas Liber for all the changes so far. I've struck resolved comments. Out of steam now, hoping to finish up over the next day or two... Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for disappearing again. I've been snowed under with work, and will be for another day, possibly longer. I'd have liked to have one last read through, but I realise this FAC has been going forever, and given Laser Brain's and Hamiltonstone's supports, I won't object if this FAC is closed. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, well I'm happy to take a look, so long as everyone doesn't mind waiting until tomorrow. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

Thanks for reviewing. --99of9 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ wikilinked --99of9 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new spider blue wikilink is continuous with a another blue wikilink, so the two wikilinks look like one wikilink. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
widow genus added into body of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✔ hourglass moved to discussion of subdividing Latrodectus, where it is also relevent --99of9 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a pic showing the proximity to humans. What I'd really like for that section is a photo of a bite... but unfortunately not many people are committed enough to pull out the camera when they've been bitten. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the article could be more ambitions with images as well; however, I have not mentioned it because it probably does not affect possible FA status. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't an FA criterion, but it certainly doesn't hurt to point such out in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I added that line. It is referenced and met with approval above. I have simplified it to "Before DNA analysis, the taxonomy of the Latrodectus genus has seen fluctuations reflecting the difficulty of using the morphology of these spiders to determine subdivisions.". I expect that it could be improved further. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good enough, my main problem was this part, which you've changed: "the history of classifying the Latrodectus genus is of fluctuations reflecting". Unnecessary mouthful. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been frustrated as all the descriptions have been brief - I can't find a source that discusses the fangs either! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
whoops, added sentence describing behaviour as ballooning in the life cycle section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, their immune system reacts to the venom, causing the production of antibodies... which are then extracted and injected into humans. (See antivenom) --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know how the horses are prepared for such large venom injections. Anti-venom horse IgG antibodies (the key ingredient of antivenom) are made by the horse's immune system and this would stay in the horse's blood compartment (in healthy horses). Of course, this IgG will bind to venom injected in the horse. I think that this means that the horses become immune to the spider's venom. Purified antivenom is injected into a victim of a spider bite and the injected horse IgG in human blood will bind to venom, and so the bound venom does not reach nerve endings where it is toxic. I understand that the horses used live about 5 years, shorter than the expected 20 years. Interestingly, some research is being done in making Brazilian spider venom synthetically in Brazil (see Biting back: Taking the sting out of spider venom). Snowman (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am glad that you raised that point. May I advance the discussion. Most people know what a mouse looks like. It is very hard to find a reference for the colour the eyes of a redback spider and this has not been sourced for the article yet. The statue looks like the spider has two eyes, but the real spider has eight eyes. We do not have any other pictures of the head of a redback spider in the article yet. The eyes and fangs are completely wrong in the sculpture, so this is worth mentioning, I would say. I think that it is a reasonable factual point for the caption, which is placed near the end of the article. If you would like to accurately describe the head of a redback spider then you can add it to the description section or make a drawing of one for us. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See I would say that looking at that spider it is very obviously a fairly crude representation of a spider and in no way is trying to be anatomically or morphologically accurate - not of the abstractness of Mickey Mouse my any means but still somewhat simplified - so I think the parenthetical addendum is unnecessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many people would think that the spiders had two eyes after looking at the sculpture? It was originally called a model in the article, which suggested a likeness. It is the only image of the spiders head in the article. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a giant spider monster attacking a toilet. I don't think the lack of realism is lost on anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed the caption focusing on the head saying that the head is not anatomically correct. There are a number of giant things in Australia, see Australia's big things. Representing things with a giant sculpture or stature appears to be quite common in Australia and some of them are quite realistic with correct colours and proportions. Remember, the article has not even described the head nor the colour or number of its eyes yet. I think that a viewer might tend to remember the picture of the anatomically incorrect giant spider and may be vulnerable to thinking that the spider has two red eyes. Looking at this image prompted me to search for more anatomical features of the spider and I was surprised to find out that it has eight eyes. User Casliber replied that he did not not find out anything about the spiders eyes. How will a viewer know that the spider does not have two red eyes, if its eyes are not described in the article. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most spiders have eight eyes, that's why there's not much description beyond colouration, spider body plans are basically the same. As for eye colour, a glance at the taxobox image shows you they're not red. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Kaldari[edit]

I am starting to think this is the consensus, but will wait and see if any other opinions arise (but likely remove) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How (from whose perspective) are you evaluating usefulness? Although some readers will just want to know how to treat their own bites, others will be looking for authenticity in the historical novel they are writing, others will revel in the gruesome and painful methods of old to reflect on how far we've come. Is there a reason not to serve them all? Would it appease the medically-focused amongst us to somehow split this into a history section? --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the same concerns that people might misunderstand it. Thankfully, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every Wiki article. The current lines will be just as bad in a history section, in my opinion. The only thing that will make is acceptable or useful is a coherent account created using reliable sources, but that would not necessarily bring it into the scope of this article. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any reason to ditch the paragraph. I think its first sentence ("Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments ... are useless or dangerous") takes care of concerns about misunderstanding. But it doesn't merit a level 2 (==) heading. I suggest renaming ===Treatment=== to ===Modern treatment===, and incorporating this section immediately before it as ===Historical treatment===. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the referenced new first line that I added helps to reduce misunderstanding. Please note that two editors commented on the position of the "Historical treatments" section on the WP:Medicine talk page, probably soon to be archived, and these opinions were key to the current layout; however, it is not set in stone. There are a lot of opinions about this section and there have been compromises all round. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I understand it the manufacturer recommeds one thing, but the practitioners and clinical researchers recommend another. --99of9 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I brought this up for discussion above. The article may need a wikilink to Off-label use written in. This is usually called an off-licensed use in the UK. I can imagine difficulties doing clinical research trials to find out the usefulness of IV anti-venom injections. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The product information does mention IV use, so it is not off-label. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, the Wiki article mislead me. On the drug data pdf it says that antivenom can be given iv for life threatening bites only, so only this indication is not off-licence for giving antivenom by the iv route. For less severe envenoming it is given im it says. I think that the article needs amending to reflect this. Also, note the definitions of rare, common and so on, because this is wrong in the article. Note the need for adrenaline to be handy. Note the dangers of giving antivenom. Note the need to be treated in hospital for severe envenoming. It should easy to amend the article using the pdf as a source. Again, I wonder if this is within the scope of the article or not; however, it does need to be accurate and unambiguous wherever it belongs. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
adjusted now. These should be in as they are specific to this antivenom Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is still a problem, because the Wiki article says that the manufacturer recommends iv for severe bites and im for less severe bites. The article goes on to say; "... IV is now the recommended route of administration in Australian practice.". This would suggest that it would be used iv for all cases, and therefore when it is used iv for non-severe cases, this indication would be off-license. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new text still doesn't address my concern. If IV use is recommended by practitioners and clinical researchers, the article should say that. Right now it just says it is "the recommended route of administration", which contradicts the first sentence, as apparently there are multiple, conflicting recommendations (thus it can't be the recommended route). Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It gets murkier than that, I just came across this, showing the lack of consensus among Emergency physicians in Australia. I am in the process of rewording the section to illustrate this I have reworded to reflect the sources - i.e. the manufacturer recommends IM, two handbooks recommend IV....(note that neither of these are official guidelines), and there is no consensus among Emergency doctors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB: As a Dr, I have ordered my free copy of this book to check. Great find! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that linked article is from 2007. I have put link under references above to a 2013 updated handbook (Doctors get guide to venomous bites and stings), which is free to Australian doctors. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new wording (just mentioning what is typically used rather than what is recommended) works for me. Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Simon Burchell[edit]

Lead

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Description

the males are tiny things - getting any detail in the description has been very hard.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fair enough. I know that the section mentions the size of the male and female, but maybe a sentence saying that the male is very small compared to the female? Simon Burchell (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All looked good - I did reinstate the outdoor toilet link as it was discussed above and felt pertinent Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toxicology

changed - some papers have not italicised clades named after species whereas others (like the source for this one) do.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - another fine article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks - muchly appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've not been following this FAC recently but have been aware of a lot of work going on. Revisiting the article, it now seems that roughly 40% of the prose text of an article that is supposed to be about a spider is now discussing bites, venom and treatment - this is even higher if you ignore the lead. This seems to be disproportionate. Might I suggest splitting the article? This discussion of bites etc. is in danger of swamping discussion of the species. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this does reflect the literature as there is alot of material on being bitten - redback spider antivenom is the most commonly used in Australia. There are already daughter/target articles which should be where greater detail lies (latrodectism for the syndrome of being bitten, and latrotoxin for the venom). If you see further up this FAC there is some discussion on what bits should be solely in daughter articles and I am very happy for more input on what should be placed in those articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems to me that the whole signs and symptoms and treatment etc. aren't really about the spider at all, and would be better off in a "Redback spider bite" article or somesuch - although I also understand that you may want to keep it here. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, I'd disagree here - bit like when we do a deadly poisonous mushroom we'd devote alot to the toxins and treatment...or if I ever get round to Budgerigar, it would have quite a bit on breeding and colour variations (though this subject would be expanded in a daughter article!). One of the headaches is that having looked at the literature I can see how the surrounding/daughter articles could be greatly expanded to highlight that this is a potted summary, but they aren't expanded much - so expanding them becomes a part of this as well...another day another article. But I will try and think what we can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The binomial/trinomial authorities given for the synonyms should not have brackets if the binomens/trinomens are in their original combinations (which they appear to be). 80.229.88.50 (talk)

By Jove, you're right....parentheses removed as they were all originally named as Latrodectus... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Hamiltonstone[edit]

Good article. On balance, I would say I support it. I'm not entirely convinced about how the venom issue is handled, but there is no one 'right' solution, and a lot of work has been done to try and get an acceptable text here.

tried reworking the misleading wording there...tricky though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other points later. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good idea I hadn't considered. Done. --99of9 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is not that bad, is it? It would be problematic doing experiments on humans. I think that the minute quantities are telling. I presume that the alpha-latrotoxin is from redback spiders (might need double checking), but there is more information on black widow venom. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know what you mean about the minute quantities, but I don't think it is meaningful enough to the reader, and of limited use since we've been told that there are other toxins in the venom besides alpha-latrotoxin, and we've been given the more significant and understandable info about the venom's toxicity in the lab. See also below. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've struck this point, as I eventually decided that maybe Snowman was right, and it wasn't so bad. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The venom is technical, but details of it is important to understand how the spider kills such a wide variety of creatures. Details of the toxin probably need to have better references and be better written, but to remove technical details of the venom would be abdicating from describing the spider properly. The redback spider's venom has some unique qualities. As far as I understand it the reback spider's venom is similar, but not identical to the black widow's venom. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"angiotensin-1-converting enzyme" is extremely well known in human biology being part of the Renin–angiotensin system. This is basic biology - first-year at college stuff in the UK. I think that little bits of technical stuff can not be cut out, because little parts help to explain all of it. The nominators do not want to split of the bites section into any of the linked pages or a new page; I has assumed that this was a consensus, but this may need to be confirmed. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reckon having an angiotensin-1-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in the venom is pretty amazing and notable -the other toxins I have deliberated about, but I do lean to inclusion as it is educational about all the compounds that are in venoms such as these - I would not be unhappy to seeing them moved to the genus article though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec)If it really is that important, then I think what is needed is a longer explanation that allows a reader like me (who completed a university B.Sc., just not in biology) to have a clue as to why the information is included. I lean toward leaving it out, and if someone wants to create Redback spider venom, then this stuff could be set out more fully there. Also, you mention "details of it is important to understand how the spider kills such a wide variety of creatures", but all of this text is in a section of the article on "bites to humans". I suppose "venom" could become a standalone section, or part of the biology of the creature?... or not. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(@casliber) OK, well can you include something so the reader understands why it is so important or amazing that there are "small peptides that inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme"? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the mention of compounds in the related species briefer, so that it illustrates how complex these venoms are yet minimises material not germane to this species and hopefully makes the prose easier to read. Need to chase a source for the medical significance of ACE inhibitors - hopefully there is one in the venom source, but very tired now and need to sleep. WIll do in AM. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see what you mean about organisation of the venom section. However, I think that details of the venom should stay on this page being an inseparable part of the biology of the spider. Perhaps, the clinical aspects are not so firmly fixed to this article. Perhaps, most or all of the current venom level 3 section could be moved to a level 2 heading higher up the page, but it would leave the "Bites to humans" section without any details of the relevant chemistry/biochemistry of the venom. There are some alternate ways to organise it, but a lot of level four headings might not be suitable. Organisation of information on the venom is a problem awaiting a logical solution. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @casliber: this section is now better, but I's still like to know what to "inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme" means in the real world. Why does the reader want to know about this particular molecular process? For example, could it read like "inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme, dangerously lowering blood pressure", or something like that? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will just go and get paper and look to see what we can add - probably in a footnote. Will notify when done. Right, added two refs - one shows their role in envenomation and second just a note on ACE inhibitors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can live with the footnote as a solution. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ACE inhibitor medication in humans is standard treatment for hypertension and has a number of side effects including causing a dry cough, which is likely to be due to the ACE inhibitor's effect on the Kinin–kallikrein system, a process that modulates inflammation. This aspect is and poorly understood. Also, how exactly the spider's venom causes the symptoms of envenomation is also poorly understood. I think that it is apt that all the venom's known ingredients are listed, even if some of them are rather mysterious. I think that the new line in the footnote is a good window into these poorly understood facets. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ACE inhibitors may worsen pain of tissue inflammation according to this paper; see Fein A (2009). "ACE inhibitors worsen inflammatory pain". Medical Hypotheses. 72 (6): 757. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.01.012., which I found on the ACE inhibitor page. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
all "alpha" now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Interesting point. I suspect that the horses are specially prepared for inoculations, perhaps starting with small doses, but I have no idea and I am only guessing. I expect that horses would eventually build up enough active immunity to become largely resistant to the toxic effects of spider venom. I think the article would need some more explanation from RS, but I have found it difficult to find out a lot. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Laser brain[edit]

I've only been through the lead and first few sections, looking mostly at prose since the nomination seems to have gotten a lot of attention to factual and other matters. I find the writing quite jarring and not up to the standards I'd expect to meet criterion 1a. It's not the style I'm used to from Cas so I suspect the prose has suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen. Some random pot-shots:

gah, asleep at the wheel - rephrased.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
de-pronouned.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no - rewritten Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
rewritten...better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is, but rewritten Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feels rough and cobbled together, with a lot of little awkward dances done to avoid restating the subject too many times. There are far more elegant ways of expressing all of the above items. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I suspect that the nominators have given reviewers a lot of work to do here, and I think that the article is still a work in progress. I am very grateful that a number of reviewers and editors have contributed various skills. I anticipate that the article will continue to improve bit by bit and I think that final phase of this FAC will include copy-editing. I would say that it is rather simplistic to say that "the prose has suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen". Snowman (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is a natural process of fine-tuning the prose so that it is both flows well and is easy to read yet is faithful to the source material. I concede we were underprepared for the FAC yet I think the article has been vastly improved while here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Over simplification: "... , a process that does not cause the horses to become ill." The horses lives are shortened from about 20 years to about 5 or 6 years. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is your source for that information? It's not in the article cited. --Laser brain (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is some discussion in one of the sources - just have to remember where...but is not widely mentioned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See BBC about another venom. I can not find other refs at the present time, but I recall seeing something similar for the redback spider. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the way to think of it is that the horses are not poisoned acutely, but there do appear to be long term health effects...It is dfinitely something that should be covered in the antivenom article.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed that horses do not become ill. I would agree that the source article probably meant "not acutely ill" and did not go into detail about the horses health over a period of years. Could the interpretation of "not acutely ill" be added back or not? Also, horses tolerate plamaphoresis well, but I can not find a secondary source for that either at the moment. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have clarified it by saying "non-lethal doses". Snowman (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More