Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of viruses/archive1


 * 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 by Laser brain 07:16, 18 December 2010.

History of viruses

 * Nominator(s): Graham Colm (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is another one of my contributions on viruses. I hope reviewers find it more accessible than my other FAs on this subject. I have made an effort to keep the technical terms to a minimum although some inevitably remain. This is a vast subject, my shelves are bending under the weight of the books I have used  as sources and I have copies of peer-reviewed papers all over my home. I have tried to distil all that I have learnt about the history of these fascinating little things. To cover every aspect of their short but complex history would a difficult task. But I hope that I have written an encyclopaedic synopsis that will  engage readers and stimulate them to find out more about viruses. I know I have written this in a short time and that it was only a Did you know...? a few days ago. But real life pressures have offered me a short break during which time I hope to quickly address all criticisms as to why History of viruses fails to meet the FA criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Great material, well referenced but without unneeded clutter. I'm no expert in this area but a casual read through suggests no truly significant problems with the material presented. The problem with this article I see is that "History of viruses" is a very nebulous concept to begin with. The scope of the article may be construed along at least three distinct avenues - considering the viruses themselves and their development over time - "Evolution of viruses" if you will, an overview of historical events where viruses play a central role - "Viruses in history", and the history of scientific research and understanding - "History of viral research". This article is a awkward juxtaposition of these three distinct areas. Like I say, I like this material and see plenty of intrinsic value but I can't help but feel it really needs forking into a number of separate articles that covers each area in its own right. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments and I value the feedback. This is how the subject is usually introduced in many textbooks. It is longer than most that I have read but I don't think this is a problem. Perhaps it is not the history of viruses that is "nebulous" but the viruses themselves, and to address this was one of my motives for writing the article. Viruses are everywhere, have been and always will be. This is a time-line in the form of an essay. You are right in that each of the themes I have introduced could easily make an article in their own right. But my intention was deliberately the opposite to this. I have tried to draw these threads together to form a semi-continuous narrative. I think you wrote in the edit summary the the scope was "awkward". I don't think it is awkward but it might be difficult. It will be interesting to read what other reviewers think. Thanks once more for the comments. Graham Colm (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues:-
 * Ref 17: "page not available"
 * Ref 42: Information missing: what book is this a chapter of? author? publisher? date?
 * Ref 53 looks over-complicated - 6 citations to different learned articles. Is this much verification really necssary?
 * Ref 67 is lacking information. It is a memoir of Thomas Milton Rivers, by Horsfall. It is dated 1965. The National Academy of Sciences location, Washington DC, should also be given
 * Ref 68: Can a publication date be given?
 * Ref 79: Needs author (F. d'Herelle), date (1917) and publisher (I'm not sure - is Virology a journal?). Also, the retrieval date information needs to be detached from the article title
 * Ref 98: Broken link
 * Ref 102: A fee is payable for this article - needs to be noted.
 * Ref 127: Why the caps?
 * Ref 163: Publisher details and date information required
 * Ref 174: "page not available"
 * Ref 190: "page not available"
 * General point: you should be consistent about showing retrieval dates for online articles. You're not obliged to show these, but it's all or none. At present 67, 79 & 145 give retrieval dates, 125 says "Accessed", the others don't give anything.
 * Second general point: The list would look less formidable if you had used short citations for multiple references from the same book. I don't suggest you do it now, but perhaps a pointer for the future.

Otherwise, all sources look fine, predictably impressive in fact. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking all the references. I haven't given retrieval dates for any of the PubMed abstracts because the dates are not really relevant they are just a courtesy to the readers, to save them having to search for the abstracts in the database. The three or four other on-line sources do have dates. With regard to Refs: 17,174 and 190, the links do work but the DOIs are "on embargo" until 2011. The PubMed links for these references do work of course. I think I have fixed the others refs listed. I know ref 53 looks a little over the top, but this is still a controversial issue that I have been challenged over in the past. I would like to cut it down to one source and will endeavour to do so, subject to finding a solidly reliable source. Thanks again for checking these, I know it can be a thankless task, but it is much appreciated. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The "origins" section seems largely redundant to that of the main virus article which appears more detailed. It would be fantastic if there was an article about all the evolutionary aspects of virii as well as a decent classification and disambiguation of retrovirus, endogenous retrovirus, provirus but this does not seem to be the scope of this article? Richiez (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it probably is somewhat redundant, but an FA should be reasonably self-sufficient and the section is needed. With regard to your interesting comments on the retroviruses and virus evolution in general, I agree, but I think this is beyond the scope of this article.Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Becoming distracted from this page I did a little editing on the retrovirus, endogenous retrovirus and provirus articles - however am rather unsatisfied with my attempt to formulate something like a basic definition/disambiguation and untangle the provirus article. Richiez (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  Great article, but  a few quibbles  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  09:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Measles first appeared in humans when dogs were first &mdash; why is "measles" capped?
 * The Middle Ages were times of plagues and pestilences. &mdash; Middle Ages is singular, despite its appearance, see the linked article
 * References to influenza infections date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries,[46] but influenza infections &mdash; avoid repetition of "influenza infections"
 * The first X-ray diffraction pictures of the crystallised virus were obtained by Bernal and Fankuchen in 1941. On the basis of her pictures, &mdash; "pictures" is misleading since it implies a representation of an object. Diffraction patterns are not representations, and "images" or "patterns" might be better
 * "Aphthovirus" &mdash; either italics if intended as genus name or lower case if not
 *  H. B. Maitland and M. C. Maitland &mdash; H. B. and M. C. Maitland?
 * Sylvatic cycle &mdash; why Sylvatic capped? see the linked article
 * You have given initials without full stops or spaces in the refs, which I like, but with both in the text. I'm not sure whether this counts as inconsistency or not, but I at least wanted to check that it was a conscious decision
 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re picture/image. I'd say "picture" was fine and in fact "image" actually "implies a representation of an object". My daughter makes pictures all the time. What they are of is sometimes hard to tell... Colin°Talk 13:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these helpful quibbles and I have made the changes suggested. I too prefer "pictures", they are pictures made by X-ray diffraction, but I'm also happy with "X-ray diffraction patterns". What do you think? Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The pictures thing seems to be my personal foible, so no big deal, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful review, encouragement and support. Graham Colm (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I found it interesting, easy to read and very informative. A well done article in a difficult topic. Nice images too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. Several url redirects, but as journal cites tend to wander around with a static central redirect hub, I'll leave it up to you to fix them if you want- I don't want to "fix" links only for them to break a few months later. -- Pres N  00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images File:FMD_note.jpg is not a permanent installation and thus is not available under freedom of Panorama in the UK, File:Journal.pbio.1000301.g001.tif should have permission in the form of File:Phage_S-PM2.png Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments. I have removed the photograph of the foot-and-mouth disease sign. I originally wanted one of a sheep with bluetongue, but I can't find a free one. I have added the template to the phylogenetic tree file, but I would be very grateful if you could check that I have done this correctly because I don't edit Commons files very often. My thanks again to you. Graham Colm (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Colin°Talk 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an interesting and accessible article, as one would expect from Graham. The references and illustrations are first class. All of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are present and correct. But I'm afraid I have to agree with Quantumsilverfish: I'm not convinced the combination of subjects works or fits with the "History of viruses" title. I think this article should continue with the approach taken by the first six sections and follow this through to the present day. The article would stay virus-centred (rather than virologist-centred or discovery-centred) but would naturally discuss the impact of viruses on human/animal/plant history and also our impact on viruses (immunisation, anti-virals, vector-control, etc). I recommend a History of virology article be created and I very much look forward to reading that because I think Graham could make it great. Some particular problems include:
 * Pioneers. This section is focused on the pioneers, with one paragraph each in chronological form. I think this leads to a disjointed way of telling the story of the origins of virology. There's no introduction and no mechanism to lead the reader through the facts. For example
 * The invention of the Chamberland filter and its use to investigate the tobacco mosaic virus are separate paragraphs.
 * The Pasteur story reads like we've joined it in the middle and we didn't know he was trying to find the causative agent for rabies.
 * The Thomas Milton Rivers paragraph jumps about chronologically and the middle section probably isn't helping.
 * The "what are viruses made of" question is addressed with "In 1935, Wendell Stanley examined the tobacco mosaic virus and found it was mostly made of protein.[71] In 1939, Stanley and Max Lauffer (1914) separated the virus into protein and RNA parts." It would be better to tell a story instead. Explain that we didn't know what they were made of. Describe how/who found out. Explain why their findings are important/interesting.
 * The word "virus". The lead tells us "Martinus Beijerinck called the filtered, infectious substance a "virus"". But in Pioneers we are told he "re-introduced the word virus". Then that "In Pasteur's day, and for many years after his death the word "virus" was used to describe any cause of infectious disease". And later in a section on Louis Pasteur and rabies, we are told "Celsus in the first century AD" used the word "virus". It would be helpful if the chronology of that term was presented as one, in order.
 * The "Influenza" section is mostly about the "history of virology" aspect rather than the "history of viruses" aspect, which I'd expect to concentrate more on its impact on humanity in modern times.
 * Same goes for "Polio". I'd expect a "history of viruses" article to cover when polio first began causing epidemics, the vaccine and subsequent decline, the eradication program and that we are on the verge of eradicating it.
 * There's no mention of Rinderpest, which appears to have been eradicated in 2001.
 * There's no mention of Cervical cancer and HPV. The link is relatively recent history and important for emphasising the role viruses play as a cause of human cancers.
 * The "Louis Pasteur and rabies" section is possibly too long.
 * HIV's impact on humanity could be larger than the single sentence given to the stats (the rest is virology) . The "25 million" is since 1981, and there are about 2 million deaths a year. It has significantly reduced average life expectancy in many Sub-Saharan African states. It has had a large cultural impact in the West with its associations with homosexual and drug-abusing communities.
 * (correction) The text about the origins of HIV is mostly "history of viruses". I'd class the discovery sentences as "history of virology". Colin°Talk 08:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Phage therapy probably deserves more coverage in a history of virology.
 * The use of viruses in gene therapy isn't covered. Again, this is a history of virology topic.
 * The Friendly viruses section is interesting but very little is relevant to a "history of viruses" article.
 * The "viruses that were discovered in the 20th century" list is a strange mix with some notable entries missing. Perhaps a Timeline of virus discovery could be a future featured list?
 * Thanks Colin, for this thorough review. There was no need to apologise (in your edit summary) since your analysis is very helpful. Yes, this is my quandary; should the article be about the history of viruses or the history of virology? My problem might be that after having spent most of my life studying these little things, and the problems they cause, that I can no longer differentiate between "virology" and "viruses". I have to admit that the two concepts are totally intertwined in my mind. So, how to proceed, can this contribution be fixed in a reasonable time for the FAC to remain open, should it be renamed and refocussed? I am open to suggestions. But, I have to stress that to write one article on the history of virology would be a massive challenge. It would have to include the many methods developed to enable us to study them, the greats leaps in our  understanding of their epidemiology and so on and so on. My theme, when I conceived this contribution, and one I tried to keep running throughout the article, was the impact these "invisible" things have had on human history and before. Viruses can be considered dull, my hope was to write a general introduction, from a historical perspective, that would encourage readers to learn more about them. This is how viruses are introduced in most textbooks. I wanted Wikipedia to have it's own, and a damn good one. Perhaps, I am wrong, but I don't see this as a stand alone contribution, I see it as complementing Virus and Introduction to viruses. Your thoughts on this, as always, will be most welcome. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the delegates to archive this FAC to allow us time to work out how this subject (or subjects) can be best presented. I thank all the reviewers who have taken the time to read the article and comment here. I hope you don't feel that your valuable time has been wasted. Graham Colm (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.