Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virus/archive1

Virus
I am nominating the Virus article, of which I contributed to, as a candidate for a Featured Article status. It has undergone significant changes, is stable on a day-to-day basis and has been peer reviewed. I think it provides a good starting point for both lay-men and scientists alike to get a handle on the broad topic of what a virus is, what they can do and what implications they have on philosophy and life --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - on comprehensivness. Referencing is incomplete; who developed the origins hypotheses?; Jared Diamonds hypothesis is quite irrelevant; there is a long section on etymology but no information on the discovery and initial characterisation of viruses; article does not mention how viruses cause disease; current research is a difficult section to keep encyclopedic.--Peta 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK took most of those to heart: wrote out the discovery of viruses, placed reference to the hypotheses, renamed/shrunk "current research". As for how viruses cause disease, I gave a VERY general overview but there are simply too many ways in which differnt viruses cause disease. It's like asking how bacteria cause disease in organisms... it seems to make more sense if the mechanisms are kept within species/virus specific articles. As for references, please point out what you think needs to be referenced. I did a huge rewrite of the article using Prescott's Microbiology - so much information in there is from that book that it is silly to footnote every third sentence with it, hence why it was just in the general references. Cheers for suggestings, --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I maintain my objection, the encarta covers more detials at the basic level.
 * The origins section still lacks information on who developed each hypothesis and what evidence there is to support these ideas- this should be provided, one text book does not cut it - where possible the original researchs hould be referred to.
 * Smells like a new article to me, Virus is over the 35kb limit as it is :p I'll work on it --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How they cause disease is not that difficuit to explain, and certainly could be enhanced by providing examples. For the number of times the word immune appears in the article- there is no mention of the interaction of viruses and the immune system.
 * The section never even passed my mind. I'll add it to my list of things to do for the article, where were you during the peer review, you're fantastic! --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know they vary - but most viruses have similar sets of genes ie. some kind of replicase and some structural (coat proteins) - this isn't mentioned in any detail.
 * To me, I didn't include this as replicase isn't a single molecule - many variations exist in viruses - and the coat proteins vary substatially. I mentioned that they encode capsid proteins, but do you think it would be better to mention in the "Genome" heading about general types of structural/functional proteins encoded? Worth mentioning that in the Replication section some more information on the types of proteins expressed are given. --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No mention of how viruses undergo genetic change, and why this might be a bad thing
 * Good point. I'll work on putting that in under "Genome" --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No menion of viruses that need different hosts to complete their life cycle
 * Hmmm, under Replication it states, As soon as the cell is destroyed the viruses will have to find new host. Not enough? --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See alsos that are in the article don't need to be in a list at the end.
 * Cool, easy to fix --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comelete references ie author, date, title, publication need to be provided for URL notes.
 * Ok as I asked below, there seems to be a referencing system here I'm missing out on. Much appreciated for a link! --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --Peta 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your help, sorry about messing your numbering up~ --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - Prose problems (first random sentence I encounter in a section in the middle of the article: The majority of viruses which have been studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres in size.)  Almost no references, and only two of them are PMID sources. Sandy 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's a sentence of mine... makes sense to me, how does it strike you as problematic? As for references, I wrote most of this from Prescott's Microbiology and hence it would be impracticle to use footnoting for so many sentences. As above, if there is anything that jumps out as particularly in need of referencing, please list it. PMID... what is that? Thanks for comments, --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ouch, it was unintended. FA review can be tough.  Most viruses studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres. Remove redundant words.  Check your entire article, before Tony gets to it :-) If you are writing a medical article, you must know what PMID is:  see cystic fibrosis. Sandy 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok no worries, I see that the size is redundant ☺ I take it that PMID is PubMed ID? Are there a list of conventions for primary referencing which I could refer to? Cheers, --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Temporary object—I chose a portion of text towards the bottom. This has all of the hallmarks of science-speak. It's written by scientists who are very knowledgeable in this field, and in many ways is a laudable piece; but a good copy-editor could make it so much nicer to read, and more accessible to our readers.


 * "Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize the machinery and metabolism of a host cell to produce multiple copies of themselves. They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both. A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects. Released virions can be passed from host to host ..."


 * "Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize ..." Try this: "Viral populations do not grow through cell division, because they are acellular; instead, they use ..." (Eradicate "utilise" from your vocabularly, please. "Because" is usually preferred to "since" and "as", especially for non-native readers. The semicolon makes for easier reading, and moreover, makes it grammatical.)
 * "They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both." Stubby sentences; there's a need to improve the flow from one sentence to the next, throughout the article. More semicolons might be one way of improving the smoothness. And why not "a lytic or a lysogenic cycle", achieved through piping the first link.
 * "A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects.: Ungrammatical. Again, more care needs to be taken in the relationship between successive clauses.

Tony 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Released virions can be passed from host to host"—Why not "between hosts"?
 * Thankyou Tony, apologies for this sort of text on my behalf. The sentence was completely written by me and I have trouble telling what non-speakers of science find confusing. To me it is just natural, and for my style of writing and speaking it flows the best. I understand if this isn't the case for others and have accordingly adjusted the paragraph. Thanks again for the suggestions --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak object
 * What about pandemics?
 * Detection, purification and diagnosis and Prevention and treatment sections should be much more longer
 * Should have more external links, references... NCursework 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)