User talk:Rebur/sandbox

Great article! I work in the diagnostic virology lab at the USDA, and we perform diagnostic testing for bluetongue and EHD on a daily basis! Small world! I do think it would be helpful to have the link to any existing entries about EHD, and perhaps maybe in this talk section you could provide a general summary of how your additions would contribute to the information already existing? This is a link to the USDA DVL testing catalog. If you scroll down to EHD, you can see that a variety of testing methods exist for determining if EHD virus is present, animal is infected, etc. The appropriate testing method depends on the reason for the test (animal is symptomatic versus general monitoring for animal export, etc.)  https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/AmesDiagnosticTestingCatalog.pdf

Also, this link is a great resource for everything EHD, if you haven't used it already: http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/epizootic_hemorrhagic_disease.pdf

My only other suggestion would be to break up your text with headings and subheadings. I think it would help the user follow the flow of your entry. Looking forward to reading your final article! 570hjm (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC) 570hjm

Please add a brief explanation to the front that explains that you are editing into an existing Wiki entry - point to the entry and identify where you will be adding revisions/content. This will then allow your class peers to understand your intention so they can give feedback. Once the material is finalized in your sandbox, you can simply cut and paste the revisions/additions into the existing Wiki article.570jdw (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi- I had a whole review posted, but I have no idea where it went to, so that should be fun for someone... anyhow- just a couple house keeping things- remember that not everyone is aware that white tail are deer and pronghorn are antelope. Might be worth tying together since you interchange later on the first paragraphs. Also, a reminder to fix up your scientific notation in regard to specific species names mentioned- italic, capitalization/lowercase etc.

I'm just curious about the mitigation techniques- if there is any genetic engineering in the midge that would prevent the virus from completing it's life cycle and basically render it non-infective? I also really like that you included the livestock production information, as that is a valuable extrapolation from the disease epidemiology. What can you do to prepare meat in case it's not EHD? Or should it just be disposed of and how? How do they test for the virus definitively or do they? Who do you contact if you suspect a case, or is routinely surveiled like CWD? 570kkl (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)570kkl

Good start! I would focus on updating your formatting and citations so they work on the wiki page. More detailed feedback is - I would work on formatting this page to include headers to make it a little more readable. This is really minor, but I would look to define or provide more detail around “white-tails”. Is a white-tail a deer? I would add citations to some of the facts that you state like “It is believed that EHD can be first found and tracked back to around 1890 and has been responsible for die-offs of many different species across North America. Diseases such as blackleg, blacktongue, bluetongue, mycotic stomatitis or hemorrhagic septicemia were thought to have been the cause of many of these die-offs”. Is this a citation – “ (Michigan DNR).”? If it is, I would just update it so it is formatting correctly in Wiki and puts the source in your references. Is there a reason that more cases are occurring in the Southern US? This might be interesting to add if there is reason associated with it. I would add a source to the Transmission section around the known carriers of EHD. In the clinical signs section it mentions “deer” is this all deer or specific types of deer? 570mna (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your systematic discussion of the epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) is focused and objective. I think you have no bias in it because of avoidance of personal opinions. There is the use of statistics to ad logic to the discussion of the disease, which has truly claimed lives of many species. The type of language used is good. Some typical scientific words are employed throughout the paper. Moreover, the level of consistency and coherence in explaining the objective points about the disease make it quite credible and comprehensible. Use of subheadings makes the whole content clear and presentable to readers.

I think the facts stated in your draft about the epizootic hemorrhagic disease are quite true and understandable. Epizootic hemorrhagic disease, EHD, is a disease that has been in existence for quite so long. Your draft also points out the important issue of the time when it was discovered. Your draft is effective and factual in recording the origin of the EHD. EHD is a disease that was first discovered in the year 1955 in New Jersey. The disease was discovered through its deadly effects on animals. I think the general background of this disease is correctly presented in your draft.

The geographical distribution of the disease is the other important insight identifiable in the paper. Since it is caused by the biting midge, Culicoidesvariipennis, distribution of this disease is determined by the prevalence of the agent. Your draft correctly notes that this disease is prevalent in North America, Asia, and Australia.

The notes on the transmission of the disease are also of great importance in this paper. It is noted that a person gets this disease after being bitten by the carrying midge. It is necessary to note that there are different species of flies that do act as carriers of the virus, which leads to the disease. It is important to note the observation that the EHD is only transmissible by way of a vector. Outbreaks may occur in the course of dry seasons. I think this specific information is quite relevant and useful, especially for the policymakers who are concerned with the management of the disease. It is important to understand the time when a disease is highly transferred so that countermeasures can be implemented during this identified period. This particular is quite useful in terms of pointing out some of the insights, which are essential for proper and informed management of the EHD disease.

You note that the EHD carrier insects normally hatch near the edge of waters within river banks. It is stated that these insects usually survive in the eutrophic areas, where their eggs can easily mature. Therefore, controlling these insects is a process that demands the destruction of the environmental conditions, which are conducive to the survival of the agents. I think the analysis of the different factors about this disease as carried in your draft is sufficient to guide people who want to control it in developing the effective ways of fighting against it. 570iya (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)iya

Very nicely done. I'm not sure what sections are yours, so I will just comment on what is posted. A couple of additional thoughts to what my colleagues have already posted is that I think it would be helpful to bold or somehow delineate different sections, such as the, is it safe to eat my deer. This makes it easier to read and see your main points. Also, some comments on whether other livestock can be infected and the effects of that, or is it just related to deer. I understand your focus of your editing is for the whitetail deer, but a few comments on the effects of this disease on other livestock would be warranted I think, considering how deer are ubiquitous and livestock are certainly exposed to deer. 570rlg (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article and great start so far! I agree with what has been stated above as far as separating headings and content. I think it could be beneficial to add a definition at the beginning of your article stating what Epizootic hemorrhagic disease is when you state that it has been around for years. Other than that I think the content is very strong, if you focus your efforts on the flow of the article I think it will be very easy for viewers to follow along. For example, once you add a definition, you could then talk about some clinical signs, followed by transmission, and then segway into geographic distribution and then use that to lead into history since a lot of your content under history is related to different locations which is a subheading of geographic distribution. I think after you've talked about all of this you have given the readers enough content that they will want to know what they can do so it will be a nice lead into your sections of prevention and control as well as management of breeding sites. I think the placement of your topic of "Is my deer safe to eat" is in a great place because it is a fun follow up question for readers after they have read through all of the main content of your article. Overall great job, I think the layout can be effective in all sorts of ways and devoting some time to how you would like it to flow will have a big effect on its' effectiveness. 570cjd (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a great technical article. I am in agreement with the commentary above and do not have any further comments. [(570smb)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B12D:49D5:C167:FDB1:DD49:7609 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi This is a great article! I agree that you need a short section describing what EHD, what the signs of the disease etc. This is the main item I would suggest adding to improve the article. 570bcs (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) 570bcs