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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" Boys are twice as likely to be admitted to hospital than girls."

Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym PATH is never defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of wikilinking in the first few sections; the remainder should be reviewed.[1] Have a look at WP:MOSLINK for guidance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

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)?

That's all for now. Might get a chance to read some more later. Colin°^Talk 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GrahamColm↑^Talk 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 --GrahamColm(^Talk ) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]