Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to virus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:52, 12 July 2008 [1].

Introduction to virus

[edit]
Nominator(s): GrahamColmTalk

I'm nominating this article for featured article because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology. This Good Article has had two especially helpful peer reviews and I think it is ready to be considered for FA. My long-term project is to improve the coverage of virology on Wikipedia and I want this article to be a useful, general introduction not just to Virus, but to other articles in which viruses are discussed. I thank all my fellow editors whose names can be found in the article's history, but stress that any errors are entirely my own work. GrahamColmTalk 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Markus Poessel (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Markus Poessel (w/replies from GrahamColm)
  • "composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes," – for a general introduction, I'd add some subclause about DNA and RNA, and wiki-link protein.
I'll do that. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins: first paragraph only has a single sentence; discouraged by the MOS, I think.
It's difficult to see what I can add. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plasmids, that can move within, leave, and enter cells and this is the cellular origin theory" – should probably be similar to what is in the lede: "plasmids, pieces of DNA that".
Yes, this would be better, I'll do this. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to study tobacco mosaic virus. He published the results of his experiments which proved that crushed leaf extracts of infected tobacco plants were still infectious after filtration." – sounds a tad awkward. The "his" is probably redundant. And it should probably be "what is now known as the tobacco mosaic virus", if the word virus was introduced only later.
Yes, you are right, but can I keep the "his", he worked alone on this? GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't want to be over-picky. Another point, though: is it important to stress that he published his results? Was that unusual at the time? If not, I'd make it "His experiments showed...". Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, thanks. GrahamColmTalk 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar." – a bit ambiguous; presumably the area of death is not on each bacterium, but instead on the agar?
Yes, I knew this might be a problem when I wrote it. I struggled with the wording here and will try to fix this. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now; how about "described viruses that, when added to bacteria growing on agar, would lead to the formation of whole areas of dead bacteria." or similar? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed accordingly, thanks. GrahamColmTalk
  • "Wendell Stanley examined tobacco mosaic virus" – is that scientific usage? I'd expect there to be a definite article.
Yes again, it is scientific usage, like we never say "the smallpox virus" of "the rotavirus", but in an introductory article, I think the definitive article is better, thanks. GrahamColmTalk
  • "in fertile chicken eggs" – not clear what that means. What are infertile chicken eggs?
The ones you buy from the shop, most chickens eggs are not fertile, that is they will not hatch. But I'll delete the "fertile", it's obviously a distraction. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK – but would that be "fertile" or "fertilized"? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to fertilised. GrahamColmTalk 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this virus was separated into protein and nucleic acid parts" – I'm pretty sure this is the first time nucleic acid pops up. Definitely to be wikilinked, and I think there should also be a brief explanation of what those are.
I'm going to change "nuclei acid " to "RNA". TMV is an RNA virus. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proteins that attach to the DNA or RNA are known as nucleoproteins, and together form a nucleocapsid." – reads a bit abrupt. Should it be something like "There also exists an inner shell around the DNA or RNA, formed by proteins called ..."?
Yes, thanks I'll do exactly that. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm." – so as not to give the reader pause, it should probably be noted that "sub-microscopic" refers to ordinary light microscopes.
Yes, this is explained in the link, but it should be made clear without the reader having to click on it. I'll find a solution to this. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most organisms use DNA, but many viruses (e.g., retroviruses) have RNA as their genetic material." – I think it's sub-optimal for this to be the first time retroviruses are mentioned, and without any explanation.
Thanks, I'm going to delete the retrovirus example here. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For more details on this topic, see Antiviral drug." – why is this not "Main article: Antiviral drug"?
I'll change this.

More comments later. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, these comments have been most useful, thanks for your time and thoughts. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You're welcome. Here are some more:[reply]

  • "Genes are made from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and, in many viruses, RNA (ribonucleic acid)." - since this is for a general audience, might one want to mention the word "double helix" somewhere?
  • "Viruses, although simple compared to cell-based organisms, are very efficient at reproduction." - I don't understand that sentence. Why the "although"? Is there a natural link between being complex and reproducing effectively?
  • "called segmented genomes." - I think it's a bit odd that this is the first mention, properly wikilinked, of genome. The problem is that wikilinking gives graphical emphasis. A reader might think that the new-and-important thing here is "genome", whereas what's significant here is "segmented".
  • "Viruses are some of the smallest infectious agents" - doesn't sound quite right (stylistically). Should it be "are among the smallest"?
  • "Most viruses produce a protein that is an enzyme called a polymerase." - wikilink polymerase? And I think the following description should be expanded to be more widely understandable. That the host cell has similar enzymes comes somewhat out of the blue; an extra sentence describing what the polymerase actually does could be helpful.
  • "Protein is essential to life and cells" - given that there are different kinds of protein, might "Proteins are essential" be more to the point here?
  • "In some RNA viruses their genes functions" -> "Some RNA genes of viruses function"?
    I've done this. GrahamColmTalk 12:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retroviruses are very different: they have RNA, but inside the host cell a DNA copy of their RNA is made." - since this is now the first time retroviruses are mentioned, they might be introduced a bit more directly: "For a certain class of virus known as retroviruses, ..." or similar?
  • "Main article: Viral life cycle Main article: Viral entry": if those are indeed two main articles (and not one main article and one "see also"), you should probably put them both into a single template: {{main article|Viral life cycle|Viral entry}}
  • "Other viruses such as HIV are released more gently by a process called budding." - budding links to "viral shedding", which includes both lysis and budding. Should it link directly to the budding section of that article? (With a comment added to that section, so that nobody will change the section title and break the link?)
  • "The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis." - any disease mechanism is called "pathogenesis", right? This sentence makes it sound as if that were a virus-specific term.
Is it only micro-organisms, though? What about heat-stroke – does that have a pathogenesis? I would recommend to leave the sentence out altogether, and wiki-link the "virulent" in the next sentence. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, I will do exactly that now. GrahamColmTalk 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People chronically infected with Hepatitis B virus are known as carriers who serve as reservoirs of infectious virus." - is there a non-infectious Heptatitis B virus? Also, and this is no doubt due to my unfamiliarity with the subject: I used to think that every little virion was called "a virus", whereas from this article, I gather that "virus" is properly a class name ("the Hepatitis B virus"), whereas the individual instances of that class are called "virions". If that is correct, should those people not be reservoirs of virions?
  • I'll remove the "infectious". WRT "virions", this is tricky. Strictly speaking a virion is a virus particle outside the host and often the term implies that the virions have been purified.
Re virions: OK! Another comment, though: presumably the term "carrier" applies more generally, not only to Hep B? That is certainly how the definition of "endemic" reads, directly afterwards. Should this be "People chronically infected with a virus are known..."? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also spread by vectors, which are usually biting insects" - sounds a bit awkward as, grammatically, this could be read as a description of the habits of vectors, viz. that the vectors can usually be found biting poor hapless insects. "Blood-sucking insects" would make this clearer, but might not be entirely correct. Is there a way of reformulating this? Also, it might be good to reiterate the way this was introduced in the lede - many readers might not remember the lede's brief explanation of what a vector is.
  • "Some virus infections are spread by contaminated food and water (Norovirus and Rotavirus)" - can you not get, say, Norovirus by contact with an infected person? Using the same hygienic facilities, say, without direct contact with food/water?
  • Your version has only food/water for norovirus; its wiki page says it can also be transmitted person-to-person, and that the key substance is fecal matter. I'm pretty sure the latter is correct. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that too. It's transmitted by the fecal-oral route, you have to swallow the virus. The person-to-person bit means swallowing an infected person's (ugh!) pooh. GrahamColmTalk 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not as hard as it sounds. Person goes to the restroom, doesn't wash his or her hands thoroughly, you shake hands with that person, happen to touch your mouth with that hand afterwards – no visible amounts of pooh involved. I think the current version, with its emphasis on food and water for the norovirus, is too exclusive. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure: I'm not talking about the lead, which now indeed has the other route; I'm talking about the section "Viruses and diseases". Markus Poessel (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are both transmitted by the fecal-oral route, the difference is only kids get rotavirus but adults and kids get norovirus, (and Graham gets Markusvirus;-) GrahamColmTalk 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made this clearer I hope. GrahamColmTalk 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disease of plants" - shouldn't the diseases be plural, as well?
  • "Normally plant viruses only cause a loss of yield." - to me as a non-specialist, that sounds like a superficial distinction. Isn't a loss of yield an indication that the plant "isn't feeling too well"? Some general loss-of-form that, if it were to occur in humans which can tell us about these things, would certainly be called a disease?
  • "These are normally insects, but some fungi, nematodes and protozoa have been shown to be viral vectors." - I guess most people will know what fungi are, but nematodes and protozoa might benefit from a brief subclause of explanation
  • "Plant viruses are harmless to humans or other animals." - this makes me very curious: is it easy to say why? Can this be traced directly to some difference between plant and animal cells? If there is a reasonably brief explanation, I would encourage you to add it to this section.
  • "They are important in marine ecology because they release carbon compounds from bacteria they have destroyed back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth." - this sentence could probably be polished. How about "They are important in marine ecology: as the infected bacteria burst, carbon compounds are released back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth" or similar?
  • "Interferon is produced by the body when viruses are present and this stops the viruses from reproducing." - another case where a brief hint of how this works would be a great addition.
  • I think this could be even more explicit. Here's my attempt to translate what I found in the wiki article interferon: "The body produces special proteins called interferons, which slow down viral replication within the infected cells, activate certain kinds of the immune system's killer cells, and help the host cells to become more resistant to virus infection." Markus Poessel (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, I don't agree with this, they induce apoptosis programmed cell death. I think my synopsis is better.
OK, I'm no expert - I just go by the wiki articles here... in that case, the small remaining quibble would be that "Special proteins called interferons" might be better – else the reader might think that they were already supposed to know what interferon is. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of antibodies would be made more lay-reader-friendly if it included a brief description of how antibodies kill viruses. Do they bind to some specific part of the virus? What do they do?
My personal preference would be to expand this even more – is there a brief way of saying how the attachment of these molecules kills the virus? Mind you, this is optional, but I for one would find it interesting, and think it is worth adding. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Polyclonal B cell response, it's complicated. GrahamColmTalk 05:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I have added a picture that is worth a thousand words, (I hope). GrahamColmTalk 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very useful picture. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plants have elaborate and effective defence mechanisms against viruses. They have resistance (R) genes that protect them from viruses." - unless resistance genes are the only mechanism, how about "One of the most effective is the presence of so-called resistance (R) genes", plus a brief sentence of how this protection works?
..and added the suggested phrase. GrahamColmTalk 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the additional information is very helpful. The spots are, presumably, visible on the plant's leaves and/or stem? If yes, it might be good to say so; before, we're always talking at a micro-level; now, we're presumably talking macroscopic features? Markus Poessel (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protective chemicals: how are those protective? As mentioned a number of times before, giving the reader at least an inkling of how the protection works would, I think, be a significant improvement.
  • "Each R gene gives resistance to a particular virus or other pathogen." - replace "gives" by "confers"?
  • "Vaccination is a way of preventing infections by viruses." - again, I'm not an expert here, and I'm a bit confused now. Earlier on, I learned that infection occurs when barriers like the skin etc. are overcome by the virus; at that point, mechanisms set in that limit infection. As far as I understand vaccination, it stimulates these latter mechanisms - infection occurs, but it is quickly limited and overcome. Yet your first sentence states that infection is prevented, and doesn't even occur. Which is it?
  • Once more, a brief description of how vaccines achieve their tasks would be a good addition. I have some vague notion that they simulate an infection, so that, when the real virus comes, the immune system is prepared, with suitable antibodies in place (or something like that). If that is the case, I think it should be explained here. A simple statement that vaccines prevent a full-fledged infection can never be as memorable as even a simplified account of how this works.
  • "DNA replication is then stopped because these drugs lack the hydroxyl groups, which along with phosphorus atoms, are needed to make the strong "backbone" of the DNA molecule." - OK, here is an account of how this works, but it is rather technical. Is there a way of supplementing this with a simplified version? Would it be fair to say that the antiviral drug inserts some faulty instructions into the virion's genetic code; when that code is executed to build more virions, the faulty instructions make it crash? Or something along these lines?
Here, too, I think that a slightly extended version might be better. Ideally, the story should be told at a level where the reader can understand something, not just accept, OK, they stop it growing. If matters are too complicated, then this cannot of course be done, but if there's a simplified, yet reasonably accurate version, I'd gladly read it. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two sentences of further explanation but this is a difficult request. To understand fully how these things work, the reader needs to know about the chemical structure of DNA, (and RNA), in particular the structure of the bases and how they are linked together. These drugs cannot form these links, so the DNA is faulty only by its being unfinished. GrahamColmTalk 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it's not easy, but it would be great if we could find a good solution. The current description is, I think, close, but not quite there. From what I glean from your description, is it something like (please correct what's wrong):
"Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, which are molecules very similar, but not identical to DNA building blocks. When the replication of virus DNA begins, some of these fake building blocks are incorporated. As soon as that happens, replication stops prematurely – the fake building blocks lack the essential features that allow the addition of further building blocks. Thus, DNA production is halted, and the virus can no longer reproduce."
Also: OH currently goes to a disambiguation page. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, I've replaced my description with yours, thanks. GrahamColmTalk 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors which inactivate this enzyme." - is there a difference between "inactivate" and "deactivate"? Also, if there is a simple way of describing what happens, this would make a great addition.
  • "In 80% of people infected, the disease is chronic and without treatment they remain infectious for the rest of their lives." - temporarily ambiguous; I read this as "the disease is chronic and without treatment" (i.e. untreatable) before reading on and realizing that "without treatment" doesn't refer to the disease, but to the people. "is chronic; without treatment"?
  • Interferon is only mentioned in passing, in relation to Hepatitis C. Isn't it more generally applicable? And once more, if there's a simple way of saying what those treatments do, this would make a good addition.
  • References, since this is FAC, and articles are meant to be in top form stylistically as well: citation styles differ a bit. Sometimes, the journal is in italics, sometimes it isn't. sometimes journal abbreviation and author initials use periods, sometimes they don't. To satisfy the stylistic criteria, citations should probably have a uniform style. How about using the templates available for that purpose, such as cite or Citation? In the case of the books cited, this would also provide a direct link to catalogues (via the ISBN).
I didn't mean you should use both. Choose one that's most convenient. The few citations I looked at didn't appear to use any template at all, hence my suggestion. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Markus, would you let me off with regard to this? Those templates can be useful; but they often make editing a real bummer. Given that I have mainly used only two (excellent) secondary sources, I think the article will not benefit from this. GrahamColmTalk 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the inconsistencies re; periods and italics. GrahamColmTalk 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be picky, and if nobody else minds, I'll let it go, but: how about making the way that author initials treated uniform, as well? E.g. author initials always with a period, and always separated from the last name by a comma in the first instance. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's unnecessary to cite both the 10 and the 13 digit ISBN.
  • For Topley and Wilson, it should probably be "ISBN-10" instead of "ISBN-0". What follows, however, has a mere 9 digits. The citation also doesn't look quite optimal - the title, edition, volume and volume editors sort of run together.
Fixed. GrahamColmTalk 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no external links that might be useful? Doesn't the CDC have links to information about virus infections for a general audience (useful for readers that are driven to this Wikipedia article by a sudden, intimate interest in one particular virus)?
Links added. GrahamColmTalk 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it – overall, the article makes for interesting reading. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The "Virus glossary" is made up of three nested tables, so it looks like an onion or something. There is probably not much that can be done about it, but I thought I'd mention it :)
Gary, this is beyond my abilities. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{clear}} the last image in the "Antiviral drugs" section as it affects the References section, at least for me
Thanks, I only learnt this trick, (from you) last week. I'll do this. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a cultured lymphocyte." – remove period
Is it not a sentence with a finite verb? I'll check.

Gary, my thanks to you too. GrahamColmTalk 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks better now. Support. Gary King (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is an interesting article and I want to thank the editors for writing it. Lay readers like myself really appreciate the work put into these introductions. Here are my questions:

  • I think the "Virus glossary" was a wonderful idea - very handy.
  • Viruses are about 100 times smaller than bacteria, and it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in). - This kind of comparative statistic is very evocative for a reader like myself who doesn't deal in measurements on a daily basis.
  • When infected by a virus, a cell is forced to make thousands of identical viruses. - Are they always identical?
Yes, ...and no. By appearance they are always indistinguishable, but sometimes there are subtle genetic changes. These changes are important of course, but this is a subtlety that is best glossed over in an introductory article. (I've alluded to this in the "reassortment" sentence). Graham
Ok. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They reproduce at an extraordinary rate, but cannot do this alone - I wonder if it is worth repeating "viruses" at this point, just to be clear about the "they".
I've done this. GrahamColmTalk 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A virus consists of two or three parts: genes composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes, and an envelope of fat that surrounds some viruses when they are not within a cell. - So only some viruses have the envelope of fat but all viruses have genes and the protein coat? I wonder if this couldn't be made a little clearer.
Yes, this is true and I will try to make it clearer. Graham
Added "all have" (genes). GrahamColmTalk 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make this even clearer. Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, you have, thanks. GrahamColmTalk 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viruses vary in shape from simple twisted and soccer-ball shapes to more complex structures. - Why are "twisted" and "soccer-ball" in italics?
Tony put them italics, I think because the links go to more complex terms. Graham
Tony knows his MOS, so I will defer to him on that. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "soccer-ball shape" is misleading - I thought that meant "round" or "spherical" until I clicked on it.
OK, and this is going to be fun. A soccer ball has icosahedral symmetry where flat parts with six and five sides are stitched together to form a round shape. Virologists love (soccer) footballs. GrahamColmTalk 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be, but it made no sense to me in the context of the article. I asked several other lay readers what they thought this meant and they all thought "round", too, and would not have clicked. I think "icosahedron" would be better than "soccer-ball". Too many people think they know a soccer ball is spherical. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the Hyperbolic soccerball page existed, that's somewhat random. Although those new balls are getting that odd new layout(Truncated octahedron). -Optigan13 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viruses of plants are often spread from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, known as vectors - "viruses of plants" seems like an odd constructions - what about "plant viruses" or "viruses that infect plants"?

Yes, this is the bad language of virologists like me. I'll change this. Graham

  • Some viruses are spread by biting insects - I was momentarily shocked by this sentence because I knew that viruses didn't bite insects! I think this could be worded better - "insects that bite [insert what they bite]" perhaps?
Oh yes, stupid me, insects that bite! (the bastards), I'll fix this. Graham
Oooh - "blood-sucking" - wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas viruses such as influenza are spread through the air by coughing and sneezing - "by the coughing and sneezing of their hosts" perhaps?
Yes, viruses don't cough and sneeze, stupid me again. I'll fix this. Graham
  • others such as norovirus and rotavirus contaminate food or water - Is "contaminate" a human POV? :) Don't they just "live" there?
No, contaminate is the best word. Outside cells viruses are not living—they are in a kind of limbo. Graham.
  • they are usually completely eliminated by the immune system, conferring lifetime immunity to that virus - The immunity clause is worded a bit oddly, I think - what about "conferring lifetime immunity to the host for that virus" or something like that?
Some thought required by me here. Graham
  • The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form fossils - I thought that a lot of evolutionary work was being done using DNA now. Would this still preclude identifying the origins of DNA-based viruses? (I am sure I have misunderstood something. My exposure to this topic is limited to Richard Dawkins, after all!)
Oh I dreaded this one. I deliberately avoided molecular phylogeny in this article because to date the technique can only "go back" a few decades, not the millions of years that viruses have been (we guess) around.
It might be worth mentioning the limitations of the technique, since the major popular books on evolution mention it. (Even I, who study literature, wondered about it!) Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this. Graham.
Done. GrahamColmTalk 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over time, genes not required by their parasitic lifestyle would have been lost - This just sounds too funny! Seriously, though, I wasn't sure what the "their" was referring to.
Yes, this is odd, I must have been smoking something. I'll get back to you on this. Graham
Changed. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still reads the same here. (Someone also just pointed out to me that is odd to speak of viruses as having a lifestyle.) Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I delete "lifestyle"? I thought I changed this earlier today. ??? GrahamColmTalk 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. GrahamColmTalk 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is under "regressive theory". Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone. GrahamColmTalk 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth - It might be a good idea to mention when cells first appeared on earth. I'm thinking "long, long ago".
Hey, do we know? Must be millions. I'll see what the latest guessimate is. Graham
I've left this at many millions for now. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth and have been dependent on cellular life for millions of years. - Should it be "may have been dependent on cellular life"?
No, by definition, they have to be dependent. Graham
Have inserted "would", then. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the late 19th century French microbiologist Charles Chamberland invented a filter with holes small enough to remove bacteria - This is a confusing beginning to the "Discovery" section - a filter for what? It seems a bit in medias res. Perhaps some more background?
Yes, more background required. Graham
A little more background added, but Chamberland was a bacteriologist, he invented his filter to sterilize liquids. It was the later use this filter was put to which is important in the history of virology. GrahamColmTalk 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more general background would be helpful. Fill the reader in on the state of research into this area. It just seems too specific a place to start. What about some of the information from History of biology#Physiology? Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is a good place to start. Awadewit, I know you, and I know you love your history, but this article is meant to be an introduction to viruses. I don't want to have to go in to germ theory, Robert Koch, Louis Pasteur, here. GrahamColmTalk 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously don't need all of that material, but some general background would help the reader. This is not a big deal, though. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • French-Canadian microbiologist Felix d'Herelle described viruses that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar - "areas of death"? The diction sounds a bit off to me.
Have I not fixed this?
Must have been fixed in long time it took me to read the article, then. :) (It sounded so Monty Python.) Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting these dead areas allowed him to calculate the number of viruses in the suspension - To me, this sounds like one virus=one dead area, but that can't be right.
Yes it is , given the restrictions of the poisson distribution.
  • Here's how it's done. You dilute the suspension precisely, say 1:1000, put a measured amount of this diluted suspension on the lawn of bacteria. Later count the dead areas, multiply this number by 1000 and you get the number of viruses in the measured amount. Graham GrahamColmTalk 13:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Yes, and the ability to count the invisible threw the doors wide to scientific enquiry. GrahamColmTalk 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the invention of electron microscopy came the first images of viruses - Add a date for the invention?
Can do.
Done. GrahamColmTalk 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem for early scientists was their inability to grow viruses without using live animals - This sentence is missing the "because" half - why did they need live animals? Why couldn't they grow viruses in the lab?
Because viruses only grow in living hosts. Lab techniques were a later development. Graham
Could we add that in? Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm. They are so small that it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover one centimetre - Why is nanometre abbreviated and centimetre spelled out? Is this some obscure MOS rule I don't know?
I'll check.
  • The DNA or RNA of viruses consists of either a single strand or a double helix. - Can there be a single strand of DNA or is DNA always a double helix? I was under the impression that DNA was a double helix, but perhaps not in viruses?
No, DNA can be single-stranded. Yours isn't, neither is mine, but these viruses......
That is fascinating! I must read more. Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most viruses produce a protein that is an enzyme called a polymerase - A bit stilted
Caught me out! I was avoiding a discourse on DNA and RNA polymerases. I'll take another look at this. Graham
  • These enzymes are often much more efficient than their counterparts produced by the host cell - Much more efficient at what exactly?
Making DNA and RNA.
  • Each type of protein is a specialist that only does one job - How about "only performs one function"? Sounds less colloquial.
Yes, I stole this line from Introduction to genetics, I'll change this.
  • Each type of protein is a specialist that only does one job, so if a cell needs to do something new, it must make a new protein to do this job. This is called protein synthesis. - Can the cell make any proteins not encoded in its genes? How "new" can we go?
Yes and no, a cell can only make proteins encoded in its genes unless a bloody virus gets inside.
What do you think about trying to make this clearer? Is it worth it? Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified this and hope it's clearer. GrahamColmTalk 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two images illustrating viruses small size, one in relation to other teeny-tiny things and one in relation to a cell. As the images seem a bit crowded to me, I suggest keeping only the cell. The other chart requires more knowledge, I think.
Yes, I'll dump the chart. Graham
  • When a virus infects a cell, it forces the cell to make more viruses by synthesis of new viral nucleic acid and proteins, which combine to form complete new virus particles - Should this be "completely new virus particles" or just "new virus particles"?
No, not completely new, quite the opposite, identical, (more-or-less).
  • The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis. - Can we add a bit more substance to this sentence or integrate the terms into the surrounding sentences?
I'll try.
Can I be the writing instructor that I am in real life and ask you to try harder? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should update that photograph of me on my user page? I'm 56 now. :) GrahamColmTalk 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was just playing around. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, never stop. If this can't be fun, we should stick to writing books. GrahamColmTalk 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! And yet, somehow, books count for tenure, not featured articles. I wonder why that is. Awadewit (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore it is not economically viable to try to control them, the exception being when they infect perennial species, such as fruit trees - Can we get rid of the "being"? Ew.
Yes.
You have removed the information about perennial species, though! We just needed to reword! Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired and expaned this section. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skin, particularly its surface, which is made from dead cells, prevents many types of viruses from infecting the host. - Is this human specific, mammal specific, what?
Animal, I'll fix this. Graham
  • Some blood cells eat and destroy other virus infected cells. - Is this easter-egg link acceptable for accessibility?
I don't know, what do you think? Graham
I clicked because I thought "why are they linking eat?" but I am a rather curious sort of reader. I would go with "eat (phagocytosis)" or something like that. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to "engulf" it's better I think. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are "Host resistance" and "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals" not subsections of "Viruses and disease"?
They could be, I'll have a look. Graham
I did this earlier. GrahamColmTalk 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, Could you just fix this for me? I've been working on the article for 12 hours today. GrahamColmTalk 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed this. Awadewit (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, (fake DNA building-blocks), which are incorporated into the viral DNA during replication - I'm not sure what "fake DNA building blocks" means.
analogues (chemistry)
Perhaps this should be explained somehow? Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "fake" to "chemically altered". GrahamColmTalk 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More precise, I think. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viruses have genes, they reproduce, they mutate, they adapt, they have sex, they evolve by natural selection, they spread across the planet, they grow in cells in our laboratories, they are, more often than not, a bloody nuisance to other living things; I don't think this philosophical debate is needed in an introductory article. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The virus article has a section on the "Lifeform debate" which begins "Viruses have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[53] but argument continues over whether viruses are truly alive." - Is this inaccurate? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that. It's best left in the main article I think. Awadewit, you have moved on, this introduction is no longer needed by you :) GrahamColmTalk 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I will return to the main article, when I have finished this one. GrahamColmTalk 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be curious what others more knowledgeable in this area think should be done about this. The concepts are easy enough to understand, so I think an "introduction" version could be written. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this was helpful. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, this has been fun and very useful. Thank you so much for these questions and your edits. I will address all of your points in the article in the morning. It's getting late in the UK. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColmTalk 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing is always fun for me. I learn a lot and (sometimes) help improve an article. Thanks again for writing this. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment from me for today. Question, any chance of a support? or I am I flogging a dead donkey? GrahamColmTalk 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First impression:
1) Is an "intro" article--which is supposed to be the function of a lead--something that we want to consider eligible to be FA?
2) I do appreciate the existence of this article, given the technical depth of the virus article.
  • On quick inspection, the article serves as a solid introduction to the topic, and the language is mostly OK.
  • The absence of a "see also" section is a little odd, given that this is an article whose existence is predicated on it being a guide to more in-depth articles.
I'm on the fence until there is comment and consensus on the eligibility factor. Lwnf360 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have at least two "introduction" articles that are FA - introduction to evolution and introduction to general relativity. These articles serve a necessary function that you outline well - the main article can be too technical for some readers. In my opinion, this longer, less technical article is better than a four-paragraph lead. We are better serving the needs of all of our readers this way. Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I think I have addressed all the above comments. GrahamColmTalk 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -article looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibeberish (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gibeberish has only made 2 other edits. Clíodhna (talk 22:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, and I also know that Sandy will take this into account when she judges whether or not a consensus has been achieved, there was a time, not that very long ago, (only last year), when I had only made two edits :) Graham. GrahamColmTalk 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 12 "Ernst Ruska Nobel Prize Autobiogrpahy" is lacking publisher, author and last access date.
  • Current ref 11, I"m assuming this is a journal article? What is the title of the journal, I can't tell because it's not in italics like the other journal entries
I took the liberty of alphabetizing your bibliography. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, and I have fixed the two references. GrahamColmTalk 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments For some reason the two external links do not work for me, going to "Page not found" and "Page cannot be displayed-System Error" error messages. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—I'll continue to sift through it for prose polishing, but I really think this is an excellent article. Check BrEng spelling? I see "colored", too, as well as "filter". And I think "three main theories of ...". Superb pics! TONY (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have found a problem in the article, which states in the lead: "is a microorganism". Looking at virus and microorganism, which both clearly state that viruses are not microorganisms, it becomes obvious that this article has some conflict with other articles. This is not a big issues, but it would be best if someone expert on the topic take a look at it.--haha169 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to this on the article's discussion page. GrahamColmTalk 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just a few comments

  • The first paragraph seems to repeat itself at least once.
Is this were I emphasise their reproducing inside cells? Can I keep this in, it's important? GrahamColmTalk 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just to emphasize the idea, I suppose it could be kept. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry the genetic information; all have a protein coat that protects these genes, and some have an envelope of fat that surrounds them when they are not within a cell." - shouldn't the final comma be a semi-colon?
  • "...to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in)." - I don't think "cover" is the right word here - that suggests area. How about "stretch" instead?
  • "...that had pores that were smaller than bacteria."
  • "At the same time, several other scientists proved that, although these agents (later called viruses) were different from bacteria," - first comma seems unnecessary.
  • "The term virus was first used by the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck who used the words "contagium vivum fluidum" to mean "soluble living germ"." - a comma after the name of the scientist, maybe(?)

Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these good ideas, I have edited the article accordingly. GrahamColmTalk 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I've changed to support, since no one has objected to my eligibility question. Lwnf360 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have been following this article through FAC and have read through it many times. For me it is an excellent and very clearly written introduction to a topic I knew little about. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the virus glossary needs editing. Under "Gene" there is a run-on sentence. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the prose. I've changed the template, thanks for spotting this. GrahamColmTalk 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should not "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" be at the same heading level, under "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals"? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, see Awadewit's comments above somewhere (on Sunday - seems like a year ago!). Graham GrahamColmTalk 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this comment: Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)?
"Prevention and treatment" is under "Viruses and deseases". My issue is different. I am suggesting that "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" are both "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals" and therefore both should be under that heading. Perhaps I am over picky or I misunderstand. Don't let me drive you nuts.—Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse, sorry, you were right and I've fixed this. Thanks. GrahamColmTalk 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A few possible wikilinks, although I'm not sure if they add enough to not be overlinking:

  • Structure#Size, light microscopy -> Microscopy#Optical microscopy techniques (It's a little odd since sub-microscopic is already linking into Optical microscopy, so I'm not sure here);
  • Structure#Genes ¶1, DNA and RNA (they're wikilinked several times in the article already, but it's an important concept for that section)
  • Structure#Protein synthesis ¶3, Sense (molecular biology) (Either positive-sense RNA viruses or positive-sense or both, not sure)
  • Viruses and diseases ¶1, Populations and carriers -> Populations and Genetic carriers (important epi concepts, although they're covered in the endemic article too);
  • Viruses and diseases ¶2, Host (biology) (Same as population, although it is somewhat covered by host range in the glossary),
  • Viruses and diseases#Plant resistance, resistance (R) gene -> Gene-for-gene relationship (not sure on this one)
  • Viruses and diseases#Antiviral drugs, AIDS epidemic -> AIDS pandemic(although piped with epidemic instead of pandemic still).

The only other issue is could you please add an {{Information}} tag to the images and move them to commons(Magnus' commonshelper). They still satisfy criteria 3 for me, and I could move them, but as Graham is the artist on most of them I'd prefer he do it so he clearly gets credit for them. I'd support but I'm not quite comfortable with my grasp of the MOS and the general qualities needed for an FA. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to move the images, and the ones on my user page, to commons. I'll move the ones in this article when its FAC closes. GrahamColmTalk 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has improved since I looked over it for GA. I wonder if it is not too late, however, to mention the research being put into viruses for use as medicine, such as JX-594. I think that might be of interest to the target audience of this article. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Oncolytic poxviruses, (such as JX), are very new and only discussed in primary sources. All I could add on this would come across as speculative at the moment. GrahamColmTalk 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a very little complaint but it has bothered me for some time. In the sentence, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RN....", do you think it should be "Viruses consist of..." in order to fit with the plural after the colon? Or, alternatively, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all viruses have genes made from either DNA or RNA..."? Each time I read it I wonder briefly if "all" refers to a virus or to parts. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, we just need to put "viruses" between the "all" and the "have". Graham. GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_virus&oldid=1138464023"