Talk:Phycodnaviridae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junyan94, Rcarr101, Changtianyi. Peer reviewers: Teen scheme.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review
Well done and quite comprehensive. This is a great landing page for people wanting to learn about phycodnaviruses. Doing your own phylogeny was a nice touch. There were a number of issues with the earlier page that have been substantially fixed. For example: - Introduction is good, but statement regarding viruses infecting humans was stretching what was said in the paper - Italics were not used consistently. Phycodnaviridae should be italicized whenever it is uses, as should be genus and species names. - Quite a number of sentences had problems with structure; I tried to fix most of these - Not clear where the information in the “Life Cycle” table was derived - Some references were not appropriate. I corrected these when I noticed them. - Provide a citation for this statement: The life cycle of the chlorovirus infecting Paramecium bursaria, known as PBCV-1 has been studied in detail - Sentence needs to be fixed: “Besides, polypeptides resemble to the SET ….” - Numerous citations were not complete, or were incorrect: e.g. 7, 23, 37, 45, 46, 48-55, 68, 70, 80 - Don't link to ResearchGate; link and point to the original source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt99 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC) - Also, formatting is not consistent for citations - more genomes are available than those given - Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus are NOT picoeukaryotes. This was corrected.

In general, the information pulled together is very good, and just needs a little more polishing.

Curt99 (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that this page, Phycodnaviridae be merged into the page called Marine Phycodnaviridae. The page we have created for Phycodnaviridae has more content and it easier to move stuff on this page to that page...after the merge we will name the new page Phycodnaviridae. I am not sure to go about this. Any help would be appreciated on how best to do this. Rcarr101 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

peer review
The lead (first paragraph) should include the most important information. More important details should be added into this part.

The whole page is well structured, and the content list really helps me to find the information I need.

Is the table in “structure” section necessary? It seems like that all the features are the same for all genuses.

More diagrams are recommended, especially for phycodnaviridae and its life cycle.

For the first paragraph in life cycle section, try to refer terms such as “DNA strand displacement model”, “DNA template transcription”, “lytic phospholipids”, and “passive diffusion” to existing wiki pages for more information.

Great details for each genus!

I like how you include the additional reading and extend links. Minruininalu (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
Strengths:
 * Well-organized; I can imagine writing about 6 different genera that are so different in their attributes and ecological roles would be a challenging thing to do in an organized and logical manner, but how you have it laid out works well.
 * Lots of detail on each genus; super interesting to read!

Suggestions:
 * Lead (introduction) could use a bit more information
 * Some sections, such as "Pathology" and "Phylogeny", are very short (2-3 sentences), making the article look a bit unbalanced - if possible, perhaps add more information, or find a way to integrate them into other sections?
 * "Structure" section - "Viruses in Phycodnaviridae are enveloped, with icosahedral and round geometries, and T=169 symmetry. The diameter is around 100-220 nm.[1] They have an internal lipid membrane and replicate, completely or partly, in the cytoplasm of their host cells.Genomes are linear, around 100-560kb in length. The genome has 700 open reading frames,[1] with G+C content between 40% and 50%." I feel like this section doesn't flow very well; perhaps because many of the sentences are quite short. I'm also not sure what T=169 symmetry means; would you be able to clarify that?
 * "Encoded proteins" section - "Ectocarpus siliculosus virus (EsV-1), belonging to the genus Phaeovirus and Paramecium bursaria chlorella virus (PBCV-1), belonging to the genus Chlorovirus are two well-studied viruses, whose genomes have been found to encode many proteins." seems to be missing some commas; suggested edit: "Ectocarpus siliculosus virus (EsV-1), belonging to the genus Phaeovirus, and Paramecium bursaria chlorella virus (PBCV-1), belonging to the genus Chlorovirus, are two well-studied viruses, whose genomes have been found to encode many proteins."

DorothyDXY (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
Hi guys - nice article!

Things I really liked; detail - the article was really well researched, had lots of detail and was well referenced. It gave balanced coverage and the content was neutral. Well written. The table in the 'Life Cycle' section. The cool spinning viral capsule thing in the 'Structure' section.

Things I would have done differently - structure and the lead section. It felt a little unstructured. Things I would have done; the lead section feels a little lacking, I think the 'Pathology' and 'Phylogeny' could be incorporated into this lead section as either paragraphs or sub sections. They kind of felt pretty important to defining the family, and a bit broader than other parts but were just like half way down the page. A quick mention of the ecological implications in this lead section would be cool as well. In terms of structure there are a few things I would have done differently. 1. I would change the structure of the 'Taxonomy' section so the written portion comes first and the break down of Genera with all the links after. 2. I alter the ordering of the sections of the article slightly differently to give it more flow and put broader parts at the top. I would structure it like so;

1. Lead section (including changes I mentioned earlier, i.e incorporating 'Pathology' and 'Phylogeny' sections. 2. 'Structure' section. 3. 'Taxonomy' section (with changes above). 4. 'Life Cycle' section (the fact the table was ordered into Genera I really liked, but because of this, for me, it flows on nicely from the 'Taxonomy' section). 5. 'Encoded Proteins' section. 6. 'Ecological Implications'

Overall really great just the structure kinda confused me! Nice work :))) xx Teen scheme (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

peer review 4
Great article and very well researched !

Things I liked

-The lifecycle table, it made it very easy and simple to read and compare

-very clear structure of the sections, and its sectioned off nicely, and flow well together

-Pathology section, with the updates/recent new about the virus and its effects found in humans.

-it contained lots of information, especially considering how many you had to research. Could tell it was heavily researched

-majority of references seem to come from journals and reputable sources

Things to work on

-lead section could be bulked up so more as theres so much information on the page. Ecological roles and pathology seem to be quite interesting and relevant, which could be a nice addition.

-an introduction to the genus/species instead of listing them off then explaining (so switch around what you already have in taxonomy)

--phylogeny and pathology are a bit unbalanced compared to the rest and could be added onto another section. Example that phylogenetic could be added to genome as it contains material about the genome in part of it. Pathology could be added to the lead or another section. I didn't think the section name "pathology" went with the information provided as well.

-In phylogeny; “viruses of Phycodnaviridae are challenging the traditional concepts that viruses are small and simple "organisms at the edge of life”, doesn't seem like its needed or relevent in phylogeny.

-In ecological role; "E.silliculosus has been cited as a suitable genomic and genetic model organism for brown algae", Doesn’t seem relevant or needed to connect that its closely related to Ectocarpales.

Great job guys and I enjoyed reading it!

Chantellemv (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)