Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virus/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Virus[edit]

Previous FAC
  • Support I am re-nominating Virus as a candidate for Featured Article status. The objections below have all been addressed and the article has been expanded both with text, references and figures.GrahamColm 06:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs)
<Moved old nom to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virus/archive1 as per instructions at top of page.Woodym555 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)>[reply]
< And, updated it in archives at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2006> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. While there may be many mechanism by which viruses can cause disease, there are just a few core principles by which they infect and replicate. The life cycle section mentions none of them and since replication is the main 'goal' of a virus, I consider that a grave omission. A less complicated issue: I'd put an etymological section near the top of an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, the five "core principles" are clearly described, Attachment, Penetration, Uncoating, Replication and Release. I agree with you in that Etymology needs to go at the top. I think the article would benefit by the addition of the Baltimore Classification scheme which is based on replication strategies and I will work on this. GrahamColm 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is probably why section three (Classification) has had Baltimore included before you mentioned it. The core principles are clearly described, but to be comprehensive, I believe they should go into more detail after that clear definition and description. - Mgm|(talk) 16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 5 steps of the viral life cycle should be 6 as you totally left out Maturation and/or assembly as one of those steps. I've started reading over the article with my recent Crash Course of Virology in mind and I've found several grammar problems and some obvious omissions. I'll either solve or list them here within about 48 hours. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, assembly is there "Replication involves synthesis of viral messenger RNA (mRNA) for all viruses except positive sense RNA viruses (see above), viral protein synthesis and assembly of viral proteins and viral genome replication. Following the assembly of the virus particles post-translation modification of the viral proteins often occurs." And maturation is better described as post-translational modification when writing in general about viruses. I never teach assembly and maturation as being separate to replication - as often it all goes on at the same time. BTW it's good to know that someone out there is actually reading Virus. I sincerely appreciate your interest. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read "Principles of Virology"? That's where they taught me Assembly should be a separate step. I'm not arguing the proteins aren't synthesised simultaneously, I'm arguing that the creation of a virion from its individual components is a separate step even if it happens simultaneously. Replication and release also happen at the same time in most infections with enveloped viruses, but that doesn't mean they are one step. Attachment, penetration and uncoating are all part of the virus' entry, but they too are separate steps even though the borders between them are sometimes hard to discern. Take for example poliovirus. It attaches to the CD-155 receptor and releases the genome into the cell through a pore - presto immediate uncoating. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it is taken-up by Endocytosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask a virologist which of the two ideas is more recent and why there are two to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So endocytosis puts it inside a little bubble. How does it get out of the bubble? Methinks I hear elegies of panspermia. 129.215.191.74 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acidification of the endosome and/or membrane fusion are two ways of getting out. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well! you can see just how complicated things can be. Given that Virus is meant to be a good general introduction I think it's best to leave it the way I have written it. To be honest, I think you are overplaying this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, you have Strongly Opposed the promotion of Virus to FA status based on an erroneous argument. You then concur that what, at first, you called a grave omission, was in fact there all along. You then go on to argue that this, (very minor issue) still isn’t correct. To me this is just nit-picking. By raising this opposition, sadly, I feel, you have already denied Virus the wider readership that I know it deserves. You seem to have a contracted concept of who Wiki contributors are. You asked me if I had read "Principles of Virology". I haven’t read it from cover to cover but I have a copy and it’s a good source but there are some points made in it that I disagree with. However, it’s pleasing to see that my own research papers are appropriately cited. Wiki is not a place for vanity publishing and I contribute where I can because I think Wiki is such a noble idea. It might be appropriate to come clean about my credentials: I am 55 and a Professor of Clinical Virology and I have published over 60 research publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I have been teaching virology for over 25 years. A handful of the figures in Virus are from my own research archive. Certainly Virus is not a perfect article, (if such a thing exists), but it was a good introduction to virology when I first started editing it and now it is much improved. I think I am more qualified to judge the merits of Virus than someone who has a “recent Crash Course of Virology in mind”. I ask you to remove or at least strengthen your argument for “strong oppose”. GrahamColm talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, part of what I thought was missing, was indeed there, but there are other problems. I will post them as soon as possible. (If I don't do it in time, my comment will be considered inactionable anyway). - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. What happened to this article since TimVickers worked on it?! It even glaringly deviates from WP:MOS now. 129.215.191.74 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I think you might be confusing this article with the Influenza FA, which is the only virology article I have made any significant contribution to. All the best Tim Vickers 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From My Talk Page

Hi there, thanks for your improvements to the Virus article. If you need any help or advice with anything please just drop me a note on my talk page. All the best Tim Vickers 15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, have a look at this image for an example of a fair-use image rationale (Link). Tim Vickers 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, this tool {Link) lets you paste in a PubMed ID number and returns a formatted reference. Saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) GrahamColm talkGrahamColm 05:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I'm basing these comments off notes to the printed version with id "165988982". I won't be covering all copyedit things here, I'll just do those myself and ask the league of copyeditors to do a final run after all comments have been addressed.
  1. Some headers have capitalization that contradicts MOS guidelines (unneeded capitalization.checkY doneGrahamColm
  2. Neither the lead section nor the 'Size' section under 'Structure' mention a source for the range of viral sizes.checkY DoneGrahamColm
  3. "Therapy is difficult for viral diseases as antibiotics have no effect on viruses and antiviral drugs are expensive."
    That's not the complete story.checkY Done There are multiple reasons creating antiviral drugs is hard. They don't neccesarily all have to be covered in the lead, but this sentence needs alteration so expenses don't seem the only reason. (Not reacting to antibiotics makes treatment harder, but has no effect on making a viral cure.checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Discovery-section doesn't mention that Beyerinck expanaded on Ivanofski's experiment..checkY Done GrahamColm 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. The latter half of the discovery-section cites no sources. checkY Done GrahamColm 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. In classification, the example needs to be at the bottom, so the reader first gets the theory,checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC) then the example (you could even use an example-template) It would make sense to mention the Baltimore classification of the virus in that example. Section also needs referencescheckY Done GrahamColm 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Classification section needs a diagram. The system isn't just based on the genetic material the virus contains, but also the replication strategy, so it pays to have a diagram of those intermediate states, especially for the non-experts who don't know the implied intermediates of any of these viruses.checkY Done GrahamColm 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Structure, the table with the morphological examples doesn't make a distinction between capsid and envelope morphology.checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Article doesn't make a distinction between reassortment and recombination. Genome rearrangement, the last in the list at Genetic change, could cover that, but doesn't really explain how it could occur. checkY Done GrahamColm
  10. "Released virions can be passed between hosts through either direct contact, often via body fluids, or through a vector. In aqueous environments, viruses float free in the water."
    This really belongs to an epidemiology section,checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) but the list of possible modes of transmissions appears incomplete. The word 'vector' needs explanation for laymen. checkY Done GrahamColm 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Although the viral life cycle is more detailed as I thought in my initial comment, I still think each of those points can be expanded upon. The MOS says short sections should be merged, so it might be an idea to merge them all together and underline the names of the stages. (For example, Attachment mentions an example virus, penetration doesn't, and uncoating doesn't give any details on methods or examples specific viruses use to achieve this. And then you come to the release section and we have a massive section about lysis vs non-lysis during release.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. In Viruses and Disease, the text mentions latency, but doesn't mention acute and chronic infections and the difference between them. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. The Epidemics section isn't in chronological order and fails to mention the Spanish flu outbreak in the early 20th century. Granted, technically not an epidemic, but it's a major pandemic relevant to the subject and I think the section should be called epidemiology anyway.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Viruses and Cancer: The sentences are correct as far as I can tell, but they don't flow well, because they are all of the same structure. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. End-point dilution and the One-step Growth Cycle or (==are?) important laboratory techniques that don't get mentioned. I don't think they are very important anymore. checkY GrahamColm 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Cell-mediated immunity (the term "innate immune system" should be mentioned) is the first line of defense of the body, so it makes sense to list it before the adaptive (humoral) immune system.checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. You don't explain how RNAi defends against viruses. All it does is get rid of ss copies; you don't mention an effect of ds copies of the genome. Laymen won't understand it. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Vaccines, probably worth to mention the role of viruses in the expansion of vaccination (see main article link too) Term morbidity needs explanation, I'm assuming everyone knows what mortality is. Section also is missing refs. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Section should make distinction between different sorts of vaccines, so the reader knows why a life vaccine is dangerous and what the alternatives are. (really short)checkY Done GrahamColm 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Antiviral Drugs, You say use of analogues inactivates newly synthesised DNA/RNA. I thought it caused the stop of elongation during replication. checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Which protease? checkY Done GrahamColm 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. The most used antiviral drug is Acyclovir. This is the place to mention it.checkY Done GrahamColm 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. The 'weapons' section needs to explain why we're not immune if smallpox was to be released.checkY Done GrahamColm 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Etymology needs to be near the top of the article.checkY Done - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's far better than most other articles on this page. Leranedo 10:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Graham, you should identify support as nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent general introduction to this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virology for beginners.This is an excellent introduction to viruses.This is a discourse on a difficult subject written in a way that is easily understood by the layman.This is a must for anyone who is affected by a virus -which,of course, is everyone. Sparkax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkax (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Account registered November 1; this is the account's only contribution to date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. Not ready, needs peer review by medicine project or help from TimVickers. Many basic MOS issues like WP:MSH, WP:MOSBOLD, WP:DASH, MOS:CAPS#All caps. Needs a copyedit, sample: All double-stranded RNA genomes, and some single-stranded RNA genomes, are segmented,[22] (see below). And: Animal RNA viruses can be placed into about four different groups depending on their mode of replication. And: During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contain embedded viral glycoproteins. Overlinked (pls see WP:OVERLINK). Many completely uncited sections. Please prune external links per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Needs serious copy-editing throughout. Here are examples from the lead of the task ahead. Please do not just correct these. Find collaborators who haven't seen it yet.

  • This "outside OF", "inside OF" infection that pervades English should be stamped out now. Like "IN ORDER to" (except that the latter is very occasionally required for disambiguation).
  • "the later are known as bacteriophages or, simply, phages"—Do you mean "latter"?
  • My fuzz-antennae are bristling at this: "The opinions of virologists are split over whether viruses are truly living organisms." Isn't this too black-and-white? I'm sure that some experts regard viruses as at the boundary, or conceivable as both living and non-living, depending on context (as for the wave–particle duality of light).
  • "Viral infection usually, but not always, results in disease"—Well, "usually" does mean "not always".
  • "Often, the virus is eliminated by the immune system and supportive therapy is all that is required." Here, a comma is required after "immune system" to signal to the reader that another statement is coming in the same sentence. Take note throughout. A comma would be nice after "viruses)"—see why? Helps the readers through, and you've put one into the subsequent sentence to prove the point.
  • I'm being picky: suddenly, the tone changes to what might possibly be an attitudinal statement: "For serious diseases, the best solution is prevention through vaccination, which can produce lifelong immunity." Can this be reworded? ("... solution is now recognized as ...", or something like that?) The last sentence of the lead should go further up. Tony (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, at the point Tony reviewed it, was mostly the text I suggested on the talk page. His points 1, 2 and 5 are due to my sloppiness and inexperience, and don't necessarily reflect the rest of the article (which I haven't touched). I agree with point 6 but note that saying "is now recognized" changes the meaning of the text and wouldn't be correct. I see that Graham is still working on the text and has revised the lead some more. Colin°Talk 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Virus/archive2&oldid=1085530458"