User talk:Wolverine1721/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1
The introductory section on the current wiki page seems like it could use more content. Giving a short history of negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (i.e when they were first observed and classified) as well as including some well-known examples such as influenza, rabies and measles even if they are mentioned again in the article, will give the reader a quick background of the topic. Links to important terms in the new additions should be added for terms such as RNA, inflammatory cytokines, and the three NSV families. The length of each section is appropriate for the content it is covering, though more could be added for “Molecular Mechanisms of Innate Antiviral Immune Inhibition” since it is such a large topic. Possibly including an example and figure to support the statement that NNSVs can interrupt IFNs or pro-inflammatory cytokines would give the reader more context and help with visualization of this action. A figure should be added to the article to illustrate a point that is being made. The references are numerous, complete, and consistent with the standard Wikipedia format. Though all references are in published journals, the referenced papers are all freely available without subscription. The work in these additions seems to be original and well supported by the literature and is not a duplicate of another Wikipedia page. Overall this is a well written and well researched addition to the negative-sense single-stranded RNA ((-)-ssRNA) virus Wikipedia page. The group did a good job addressing important aspects of the topic such as life cycle and innate immune responses that were not covered in the original article. The addition of these sections will give the reader a more detailed understanding of (-)-ssRNA viruses. Some points of improvement would be in the introductory paragraph with the addition of further background and classification of (-)-ssRNA viruses and how a layperson might relate to this topic. The addition of a figure would further illustrate many points made in the article, especially those in the “NNSV-Mediated Inhibition of IFN Inhibition” section, since signaling pathways are hard to visualize (see Figure 2 of Chatterjee, S, et. al). It would also be helpful if the section on innate antiviral immunity inhibition was expanded, since this is probably the broadest topic covered in the article. The references are appropriate and the layout of the article is well thought out. Cblanken28 (talk)

Peer Review 2 and 3
The introduction available on the Wikipedia page seems sufficient but a little too brief. For example it mentions that the words positive oir negative depend on the sense or polarity of the strand but it does not mention that Negative-sense (3' to 5') viral RNA is complementary to its positive sense viral mRNA and the positive-sense RNA must be produced by an RNA polymerase, which is usually found in the virion. I would also recommend a picture of the difference between positive and negative sense RNA. Something like this. Also it would be good to give people quick examples of negative sense RNA like the ones stated in the article for example Ebola. The introduction on the wikipedia page was easily understandable so it does not need editing. The content of the sections are sufficient you might consider adding whether the negative sense RNA replicate through lytic or lysogenic replication. You are missing links for words such as interferons, cytokines, and some others. I feel like you could add more information to the topic about NSV LIfe Cycle and Replication. This is a big difference between positive and negative sense RNA and feel that it should be discussed more for example talking about the extra machinery involved in the negative sense strands. In the section about RNA synthesis Machinery seems a little too long and as a reader I get lost reading through the whole thing. I recommend cutting it down a bit and breaking up the section. I also recommend adding a figure for this section because it is vital for understanding negative RNA and why it's called negative stranded. Your references are complete however they are all journal sources it's possible to find some textbook sources for this broad topic. All in all I think your article is really well done I love how it is organized and it brings new information about negative strand RNA into Wikipedia. I think the users will be thankful for the extra information. I believe you should make some more parts more easily read for the average reader like the first section. Also use more links because that allows the reader to quickly go back and forth between two articles to help fulfill the readers understanding. Other than those a job well done thanks guys. Mohamed Ghandour — Preceding unsigned comment added by H12B (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The introduction is good, could use a bit more background in regards to the topic. Possibly linking other pages that discuss different RNA synthesis machinery, and using that point to give e brief overview of the differences for negative-stranded RNA viruses. Also linking some pages then utilizing larger words such as segmented versus non-segmented RNA, VSV, and interferons. This way individuals who aren't as well versed are able to have a better idea as to what the topic is. It seems that there is already a page discussing Negative Sense Single Stranded RNA Virus that just covers the replication, families, and range of viruses. If this were to be added to this published site, I would attempt to expand more on the inhibitions of the virus it self. it seems like the "Molecular Mechanisms" and "NNSV" have the same information typed up on both topics. SO moving forward trying to describe the distance differences between the two as it plays a role to RNA synthesis. It may help to include a figure that can assist in solidifying the information for the reader and have a image to rely on. The structure overall is complete and addresses different aspects of the topic as a whole. The sources all seem to come from journals so trying to find other sources from news articles or other media that non-expert readers may take from All in all what you already have is a great starting point. Restructuring the information and creating a smoother introduction will go along way in helping the reader have a reference when reading about NSV and the inhibition and replication of the virus type. Though there were some subtopics within the article which others may not have prior knowledge about, the authors did a good job of relating the synthesis of RNA within NVS and the differences between the segmented and non-segmented NVS. Again if you can expand on the distinct differences in the "Molecular Mechanisms" and "NNSV" inhibition this would allow some clarity for the reader. Tembopride (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 4 and 5
Overall, your Wikipedia article is very thorough. I would recommend that you add to the intro so that the information you choose to include is given more relevance. The length of each section is adequate. However, given how much information you include and how in-depth some of it is, you should link important terms for casual readers. The content is not duplicative of any other content on Wikipedia as far as I have seen, so you do a good job with respect to that. It seems that no figure were added, so I am unable to comment on your figures. Your references, while complete (5+), are all journal sources. Throwing in some variation is important. Overall, it looks good. Hopefully, upon integration with the existing Wikipedia page, people will be able to learn about negative sense single stranded RNA Viruses. --Amhammoud5 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, Jason, Shaan, and Sahithi for sharing your Wikipedia article for peer review. I really appreciate your organization into specific subject matters and the information regarding these topics are specific but not too overwhelming for casual readers. However, your summary on RNA Synthesis Machinery could be further divided into two categories. Where you start “Catalytic activity…” could be a subset of the “RNA Synthesis Machinery” topic. When you have a chunk of information to begin with, it could distract the readers and lead readers astray through too much information. You got to slowly lead them in. Furthermore, to slowly lead the readers into a well organized piece, I recommend that you start off with a background/introduction information generally defining your topic in couple of sentences. Usually users read the introduction then decide if this piece is what they were looking for. I also realized that you have not attached words to the its appropriate links throughout the paper. This attachment mode in Wikipedia is essential since it can help readers guide through the paper without being lost by words that the readers don’t know or understand. Therefore, add attachment links all throughout your paper. Lastly, I realized your piece doesn’t have a figure which makes the paper mundane and extremely hard to follow. Few ideas for a figure could be a figure of the NSV ribonucleoproteins or a scheme of the mechanism of innate antiviral immune inhibition. There could be many ways you could add a figure, so discuss about this and compromise on which figures you guys can utilize to deliver an effective article. Again the “Common Mechanism for RNA Encapsidation by NSVs” could further be divided into subsets like “Structure” for second and third paragraph, “Mechanism” for third and fourth paragraphs. Overall, your Wiki article’s content of information is thorough and specific enough for casual readers, like us, to read. However, it could improve further on organization that can guide readers effectively and add attachment links on words since I had trouble with few words that I had to search myself to know what they were. Use as much links as possible because these scientific topics could be hard for readers to follow unless they are researchers themselves. Thank you for sharing your draft and I hope to see great improvements on your final copy.

Sungyeob (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from the librarians
It would be helpful to know how much of the original article you're planning to keep in your revision: the existing Taxonomy and Host Range sections, for example, include content that is not represented in your rewrite. Your rewrite also seems substantially more technical than the existing articles on other virus types - see Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus and DNA virus for examples. Keep in mind that your target audience is not necessarily other advanced students of biochemistry. Some of your text might make more sense as additions to articles on, for example, Infection or related articles. Finally, you'll need to be substantially more aggressive in linking technical terms in your article to their respective Wikipedia articles. ScottMLibrary (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)