Talk:Poliovirus/GA1

GA Review

This article merits a pass. Congratulations to all the many editors who have worked on it. This article is a stunning example of collaboration wiki-style. Wow!

The article is well written (although not perfect), in standard style, factually accurate in all respects that I know of (I checked no sources), well cited using reliable sources (hence verifiable), broad in coverage (although below I note an important omission), neutral (remarkably so), very stable, and well illustrated (all images licensed, relevant, well captioned).

The article is not far from FA, but here I am reviewing it only for GA. I have a few suggestions for improvement:

This sentence is unclear: The distinct speciation of poliovirus probably occurred as a result of change in cellular receptor specificity from intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), used by C-cluster coxsackie A viruses, to CD155; leading to a change in pathogenicity, and allowing the virus to infect nervous tissue. Is it saying speciation was driven by genetic drift or lineage sorting in the host species? Or that the mutation mentioned in the previous sentence in effect created a new host for the virus?

Yes I agree this is not clear. I'll have to think about this.

What is the natural host? Humans? Or is there an animal reservoir? The answer is implied, by omission, but this information should be stated explicitly.

Yes, you're right, the natural host is humans, (children mainly).

The section Life cycle probably should come before the section Origin and serotypes.

156.99.162.253 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Why natural host is human? Humans have been around for millions of years and unless fossil evidence is uncovered that indicates polio, then it seems to me that this question cannot be answered. Egyptian mummies were id'd with smallpox scars hence furnish the earliest evidence of the origin of smallpox. It may well be that there is a 'trigger' population of humans that allow the invasion of polio, smallpox, etc. Or that in combo with some volcanic eruption that ashes the atmos for decades, changes weather patterns, shrinks and allows pollution of ground water, forces human migration, etc. Did polio arrive 3,000 bc with smallpox? Excellent article. 2012 Viral world by G Zimmer, does not claim eradication of polio along with smallpox, and further, says --like your article about polio-- that the smallpox virus is not understood.[reply]

The article leaves me with two big questions. Which of the 3 serotypes is used in the injected polio vaccine? And what is the world distribution of those serotypes?

The answers to both questions are in Polio vaccine and Poliomyelitis. I'll steal a sentence or two for this article.

Those articles don't answer my questions (or I wouldn't have asked them, KWIM?). Neither article describes the world distribution of polio virus serotypes, only of epidemic outbreaks. I have in mind a world distribution map, perhaps an historical one. Polio virus says the original IPV was a product of all three serotypes, but what does that mean? Is it a recombinant? An admixture? And what about the new, more potent IPV? From what was it derived? Reference strains of each serotype were selected for the original IPV; where is the center of distribution of each of those reference strains in the wild? --Una Smith (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Una. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, well done. --Una Smith (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article Una. So far, my contributions to the article have been minimal, but your review has given me the inspiration to make some important edits. Graham Colm ^Talk 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with GA-pass

This should have been put on hold:

There have been 6 edits (2 related to vandalism) since May 17. Your concerns are most likely not going to be addressed...
Per the Manual of Style, there should be no references in the lead.
I don't understand this article at all...too much jargon...does it have to/is it supposed to be this way??

Cheers, the_ed 17 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns will be addressed. Graham Colm ^Talk 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks...just remember, Big Brother will be watching... =) the_ed 17 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was rather (and happily) surprised when Graham nominated this article for GA. This article was born a spin off of the main polio article mainly to enable its further expansion. I wrote the bulk of it, however a lot of the technical information was added by someone very knowledgeable at McGill University which is (arguably of course) the leading institution in poliovirus research. Given this, and that I am personally not a poliovirus expert, I was reluctant to change some of the jargon for fear that I would alter the factual accuracy. Wikipedia:Lead section states that "[the lead]...should be carefully sourced as appropriate...". The references in the lead are required there as the information is not restated later in the article. I will be happy to help address some the specific concerns above, and if there are specific instances of jargon that can be better explained, please point them out. I can try my best to de-jargon without altering the accuracy.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any information that appears only in the lead, should be repeated (and presumably expanded) in the body. Colin°^Talk 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is what I was talking about when I said, "does it have to/is it supposed to be this way??" If you can't change it, no big deal...I really had no idea if it could be altered, I just added a note on the off chance that it could be. the_ed 17 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly more work is needed, but the article is above GA standard imo, that's why I nominated it. There is some way to go before it's ready for FA candidature, but that's achievable. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reviewer. I read the instructions for a GA review, and they did not say "perfection required" nor "meets MOS in all respects, no matter how minute". Also, this is GA, not FA, so I expect to see room for improvement. Finally, there is a huge backlog of articles waiting for GA review, yet here my review is being criticized as not being equal to ... what? Not equal to the review some other editor might have written, if they had bothered to write it. Well, I did bother, and in anticipation of reading "thank you", I write "my pleasure". --Una Smith (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't think offense was intended, nor did I take any. However, I do want to raise a caution flag about alienating reviewers. Anyway, is 6 edits since May too many or too few? --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably too few....but my concern was that no one would address your concerns because no one was editing it!! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live with a cat that looks identical to this one. Time to move on, I think. ;-) Graham Colm ^Talk 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]