Wikipedia:Peer review/Rotavirus/archive1

Rotavirus
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done all I can with it at this stage and need some feedback.

Thanks,

GrahamColm 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
Hi, Graham, I'll start a section here and add to it as I'm able. I went through last week and made sure most of your WP:MOS issues were in order and that your referencing style was correct, so I don't expect to find much there. I'll add more points as I read; you do *not* have to respond back to me on each issue.


 * The "Vaccines" section refers to Rotavirus Vaccine Project, but the WP:LEAD refers to the Rotavirus Vaccine Program–two different names. Also, the second occurrence is wikilinked, when it should be linked on the first occurrence.  Since it's in the lead, I always like to see the article stub created, but that's not strictly necessary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * " Boys are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital than girls."
 * Why? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "(For and explanation of reassortment see Virus). "
 * Note typo, but more importantly, avoid sending readers to and fro to find information they need here. Find a way to avoid this, either by defining the term or linking to something directly that does, avoiding the parenthetical.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "In the 1960s, the epidemic (sic) diarrhoea of infant mice (EDIM) virus was discovered."
 * The reader isn't told why the (sic). If the "epidemic" was a misnomer, why not just leave it out?  Or somehow address this to make it easier on the reader.  If it's not a direct quote, do you need the sic?  If not, can you avoid the entire issue somehow?


 * Book references need page numbers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Pathogenesis" section says:
 * Childhood mortality caused by rotavirus is relatively low in the U.S., with an estimated 100 cases per year, but reaches over 500,000 cases per year worldwide (as of 2005).[citation needed]


 * but "Epidemiology" says:
 * About 120 million rotavirus infections occur every year, causing the death of 600,000 to 650,000 children.[49]


 * And the lead says:
 * In America, rotaviruses cause an estimated 1 million episodes of gastroenteritis which result in 150 deaths each year.


 * Conflicting info on number of deaths in US and number of deaths worldwide. Also, I'm not sure why this info is covered in two different places.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The acronym PATH is never defined. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead introduces a term that is not defined (double-stranded). You either have to link or define it for us dummies, or find a way not to have to mention it in the lead.  I worked earlier on reducing WP:OVERLINKing of common terms in the article, but you have to be sure to link or define technical or relevant terms that some readers (like me) don't know.


 * The lead says, "and the USA Centers for Disease Control", but elsewhere in the article you use "U.S."—consistency. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, hitting all the highlights (have a read of the Lead article). It doesn't touch on all the important points, yet it does mention veterinary aspects, a topic which is barely addressed in the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "VP" is first introduced in "Rotavirus proteins",
 * There are six viral proteins, (VP) ...


 * but VP is used and discussed in the two preceding sections. The term/acronym should be defined on first occurrence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of wikilinking in the first few sections; the remainder should be reviewed. Have a look at WP:MOSLINK for guidance.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin
That's all for now. Might get a chance to read some more later. Colin°Talk 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence should make it clear what Rotavirus is (a genus of virus). A quick glance at other virus/genus articles shows there is some inconsistency in whether to use singular (rotavirus is a ...) or plural (the rotaviruses are ...). Is there any standard for this among your sources?
 * Does the vaccine protect against all the human-infecting groups (A, B, C)?

Graham Colm ↑ Talk 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Colin, thanks for taking the time to read the article. Yes, the lead does need some more work. I actually prefer the plural Rotaviruses but the fashion is to use the singular because it also works as an adjective; people are said to have a rotavirus infection, (strictly this should be rotaviral infection). Your second question is an important one. Vaccines have only been developed against group A rotavirus, (?rotaviruses) because they cause over 90% of infections of humans. They afford no protection at all against the other groups. I will work this into the article.


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for all the very helpful comments. I have edited the article and incorporated all these points and now I the article is much improved. There are still a few minor tweeks and edits that I can see need to be done, but any further comments are very welcome. I will be taking the advise of User:SandyGeorgia and nominate Rotavirus for GA status at the weekend. Thanks once more --Graham Colm (Talk ) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)