![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Very interesting read! I'm wondering if this article would be more appropriately titled "History of virology"? I'd expect a history of viruses article to have more discussion on phylogenetic relationships between different types of viruses, viral evolution, more discussion of genetic reassortments in pandemic influenza viruses, virus origins (eg. like in this paper), etc. Thoughts? Sasata ( talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think foot and mouth disease and possibly canine parvovirus deserve a mention. And maybe avian influenza. Perhaps a short Viruses of animals section is needed? Graham Colm ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The article currently mentions only those discovered up to the late 20th century, and nothing after that. We did have notable virus discoveries in the new millenium, such as SARS coronavirus. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is up to your usual high standard, Graham. I'm making notes as I read though. Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read Dorothy Crawfords' The Invisible Enemy – A Natural History of Viruses ( ISBN 978-0-19-856481-2) which was first published in 2000. Although better written, many of her themes are mirrored in our article. In her book, she discusses the nature of viruses, their discovery, the work of Jenner Pasteur and Beijerinck – although there is little on the origins and evolution. This has led me to think that an interim solution to the problem with the scope of the article might be to rename it Natural history of viruses. Thoughts? Graham Colm ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wondering how it was decided what viruses would be covered? Having worked on Dengue fever recently I see it has only been given cursory mention even though it is the second most important tropical disease after malaria thus the first most important tropical virus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm having another read through this revised article. Notes as I go..
Colin° Talk 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about renaming the article "Viruses, past, present and future", which is more in keeping with the scope of the article that I am trying to write. Any views on this? Graham Colm ( talk) 10:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an absurdity in the section "Discovery of vaccination". It reads "Six men [served] as the subjects of the public experiment [and] one of them, a nineteen-year-old woman..." I suspect someone will need to access the original source of the information (Tucker, p17) to establish the correct story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmspinks ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Axl ( talk · contribs) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I shall review the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 1: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily." The qualification "In humans" implies that acquired immunity may be passed permanently in non-humans. Is this correct?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The same sentence: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily through breast milk and the antibodies, which cross the placenta from the mother's blood to the unborn child's." I believe that breast milk contains IgA (i.e. antibodies), which are the mechanism of transfer of immunity.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "Humans have lived with herpes virus infections since humans first came into being." Would it be reasonable to link "herpes virus" to "
herpes simplex virus"? The page "
Herpes virus" is a disambiguation page.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "The virus passed to us from other mammals more than 80 million years ago."
Anatomically modern humans arose about 200,000 years ago. More ancient
archaic Homo sapiens arose about 500,000 years ago. I don't think that our 80-million-year old ancestors can really be equated with "us".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "But there is no reason to doubt that early hominids suffered from colds, 'flu and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today." How about: "However it is likely that early hominids suffered from colds, influenza and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today."
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "It is the younger viruses that cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is those that history records." How about: "Younger viruses cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is these that history records." (Actually I'm not sure that "younger" is the right word.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In "In prehistory", paragraph 3, could you add a reference to the last part of the paragraph please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The close similarities between measles virus, canine distemper virus, and rinderpest virus...", would it be reasonable to link "canine distemper virus" to "
Canine distemper"? "
Canine distemper virus" redirects to "Canine distemper".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The measles virus appears to have fully diverged from the then-widespread rinderpest virus by the 11th and 12th centuries." This should be either "by the 11th century" or "during the 11th and 12th centuries". If it had diverged before the 11th century, obviously it must have diverged before the 12th century.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 3: "In more recent times, measles has become extinct on remote islands with populations of fewer than 500,000 people." I wonder if this should be "extirpated" rather than "extinct"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", last paragraph: "The plant, later identified as Eupatorium lindleyanum, is often infected with Tomato yellow leaf curl virus." Should "Tomato" have a lower case "T"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Middle Ages", paragraph 2: "The average life expectancy during the Middle Ages was 35 years and 60% of children died before the age of 16, many of them during their first 6 years of life. Among the plethora of diseases common at the time were influenza, measles, and smallpox." It is unclear if these three diseases were a major cause of childhood death. I expect that smallpox was a major cause, while measles was not. I am unsure about influenza.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Middle Ages", last paragraph: "The resulting loss of cattle caused famine and starvation." "Famine" and "starvation" seem to be redundant. Perhaps just "famine"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 3: "Sydenham had been a soldier and fought for the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War." I don't think that this is relevant. Perhaps delete it?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A general comment about the article's title and scope: the opening sentence says: "The social history of viruses describes the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history." Yet most of the article does not describe "economic and cultural influence of viruses". I realize that historical information is mostly unavailable, not least because of the difficulty in distinguishing the different diseases. Despite this, the section "In prehistory" (and parts of other sections) describe the influence of human culture on viruses, rather than the other way around. In the late 20th century, HIV/AIDS had a profound impact on the gay community, leading to cultural changes: use of condoms and possibly a reduction in promiscuity. There was also a lesser impact on the IV drug user community. HIV and viral hepatitis led to a change in the way medical blood products are handled.
The page " History of viruses" redirects to this article. I wonder if this article would be better titled "History of viruses"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 4: "It was probably influenza, although we cannot be sure, because records from the time when medicine was not a science can be unreliable." The latter part of the sentence seems to be unnecessary. It would be sufficient to say "It was probably influenza." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In "Early modern period", could you add a reference to the last part of paragraph 4 please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "References to influenza infections date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, but infections almost certainly occurred long before then. The first that was reliably recorded began in Malta in July 1580, and swept across Europe, Africa, and Asia." I presume that the infection from Malta was a pandemic rather than a general influenza infection?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The first pandemic that was reliably recorded began in July 1580.... More than a century passed before the three pandemics of the 18th century." If the first pandemic was in 1580 and the next was in the 18th century, it is obvious that more than a century passed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The pandemic began in November 1781 in the East Indies." Is the East Indies the same as (modern) India? Would it be reasonable to add "(India)" in the sentence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "the army of Pánfilo de Narváez (1478–1528), who followed Hernán Cortés (1495–1587) from Cuba." I don't think that the dates of birth and death are helpful. Perhaps delete them? Also, I believe that the dates quoted for
Hernán Cortés are inaccurate.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "In the 150 years that followed 1492." I presume that 1492 is relevant because of Columbus' discovery?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 8: "Further epidemics of the disease occurred in the North Americas." I have not heard the phrase "the North Americas" before. Should this be just "North America"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 1, I would like to see more information about variolation in Istanbul. Also, I think that there is too much detail about Lady Montagu. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 3: "The boy was James Phipps (1788–1853)." This sentence appears as a stand-alone statement, as though it is important of itself. Perhaps combine it with the subsequent sentence: "The boy (James Phipps) survived the experimental inoculation with cowpox virus and suffered only a mild fever." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", last paragraph: "As a result, for the first time in twenty years, there was a severe outbreak of smallpox in Gloucester in 1895." That would make the preceding outbreak well after the introduction of the 1853 Vaccination Act. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 1 states "the disease has been known for over 4000 years" and "The disease has been known since antiquity", which seem to be repetitive.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 3: "A bricklayer had defended the boy from the dog with an iron bar." I don't see why this is relevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", last paragraph: "Little was known about the cause of the disease until 1903 when Adelchi Negri (1876–1912) first saw microscopic lesions in the brains of rabid animals now called Negri bodies." I presume that the lesions were called Negri bodies, rather than the brains or the animals?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "20th century", paragraph 1: "the term "filterable virus" was coined to describe them." Is this a misnomer? "Unfilterable virus" would make more sense.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Smallpox eradication", last paragraph: "The eradication campaign was not without casualties." I don't think that the sentence has encyclopedic tone.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", paragraph 3: "In the US, by the mid-1970s the incidence of measles had fallen by 90 percent. This reduction was achieved by a mass vaccination programme that was known as "make measles a memory"." Perhaps re-order the statements to declare the programme first, followed by the fall in incidence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "The use of the vaccine is not without risk, and its use has been controversial." Is this referring to
Andrew Wakefield? In any case, I believe that the
MMR vaccine controversy is relevant to this article, and there should be a couple of sentences about it.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of MMR, I think that the article should mention that mumps and rubella (and chickenpox) have vaccines available, even if there isn't a full discussion of the diseases. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "Measles remains a public health problem in Japan, where it is now endemic and a National Measles Elimination Plan was established in December 2007, with a view to eliminating the disease from the country by 2012." Can we have an update on this please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", last paragraph: "In 2003, the largest virus by far, mimivirus was discovered to infect amoebae."
Megavirus chilensis is now the largest known virus.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1, perhaps put the information about the 1950s after the information about 1916–17? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1: "The disease was not confined to the US, as many other industrialised countries were affected at the same time." The first half of the sentence is redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 3: "Why a disease that is caused by a virus that is passed from person to person by the faecal-oral route, and only naturally infects humans, became a problem during times of improved sanitation and increasing affluence is a paradox." Can this sentence be simplified please? Perhaps split it into two?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", last paragraph, perhaps put the murders of vaccinators in Pakistan/Nigeria before the murder of a police officer?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "It is now a pandemic, and an estimated 38.6 million people now live with the disease worldwide." Is this the disease (AIDS) or the virus (HIV)?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the same paragraph, there is a discrepancy between that number (38.6 million) and the numbers quoted later: "As of 2010, over 40 million people have been infected and more than 25 million of them have died from AIDS-related diseases."
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The same paragraph duplicates the statement that 25 million have died from AIDS.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "When, in 1981 a scientific article was published that reported the deaths of five young gay men." Although it is implied from the context, perhaps explicitly state that these men were subsequently believed to have died from AIDS?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 2: "This led the World Health Assembly to pass a 1987 resolution." Was this really a "resolution"? Or just a statement?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", paragraph 1: "The last pandemic of the 19th century occurred in 1899 and resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people in Europe alone." Use of the word "alone" implies that many deaths occurred outside Europe. If there is no information about the number of deaths outside Europe, perhaps delete the word "alone"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph: "More than 30 years passed until the next pandemic in 2009." "More than 30 years" seems to be redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to review this article. I appreciate these and further comments; they are most helpful. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph, hasn't improved medical care since the 1918 pandemic helped to reduce the death tolls of subsequent pandemics? Also, wasn't the close crowding of soldiers in trenches at the end of WWI a factor? Sick soldiers were typically transported by train to hospitals well behind the trenches, while mildly ill soldiers remained at the front, spreading the infection.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Influenza virus was not isolated until the 1930s and no samples of the 1918 strain exist. The molecular biology of the renconstructed virus is helping to solve the mystery of its virulence, but I don't think we have a clear-cut answer yet (which would probably be beyond the scope of this article in any case). Your point about the trenches of WW1 is interesting, but very Eurocentric. The infection killed 50 million people worldwide. Trench warfare does not explain how the virus "spread over the whole of [China] like a tidal wave". (Barry p. 172) Or, how "in Sidney it sickened 30% of the population" (ibid) and so on and so forth. With regard to improved medical care, healthcare services cannot cope with pandemics as all subsequent pandemics have shown (including the 2009 one). I doubt very much if improved healthcare can offer any explantion as to why the 1918 pandemic was so lethal.
Graham Colm (
talk) 15:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 1: "There are more than 500 species of arboviruses, but in the 1930s only three were known to cause disease in humans: yellow fever, dengue and
Pappataci fever." Should "yellow fever" and "dengue" also have wikilinks? Should "dengue" properly be called "dengue fever"? Use of the word "dengue" alone to describe the disease seems to be colloquial.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 2: "In 1905, the last major epidemic occurred in the US." This sentence implies that the last major epidemic was in 1905. Perhaps it should read "In 1905, the last major epidemic in the US occurred."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses": "The diseases caused by hepatitis viruses were all recognised before the viruses were discovered." How helpful is this statement? Are there (human) diseases where the virus was discovered before the disease was described?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses", it is worth mentioning that transmission of hepatitis B & C (and HIV) in blood product transfusion has led to a change in the way that blood products are handled. It may also be worth mentioning that used sharp medical instruments (needles, etc.) are carefully disposed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 1: "Viral diseases of livestock can be devastating both to farmers and the wider community as the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2001 has shown." Should "outbreaks" really be plural? (If so, the sentence should end "have shown.")
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 2: "in 1994 the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme was launched by the Food and Agriculture Organization with the aim of global eradication by 2010." Any update on this? If not, perhaps delete "by 2010".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", paragraph 2: "In Ghana by 1977, the mealybug-transmitted cacao swollen root badnavirus caused the loss of 162 million cacao trees." Over what period of time were these 162 million trees lost?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "The citrus tristeza closterovirus (CTV) was introduced to South America from Africa between 1926 and 1930." Wikipedia has the article "
Citrus tristeza virus". Would it be reasonable to change "closterovirus" to "virus" and add a wikilink?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "By 1950, more than 6 million citrus trees had been destroyed in Brazil." I am not sure what "destroyed" means in this context. Were these trees killed by the virus? Or were the trees killed by farmers in an attempt to prevent spread of the disease?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "CTV and citrus trees probably coevolved for centuries in their original countries." Do citrus trees really evolve over a period of centuries? (I accept that viruses, with their fast life cycles, may well evolve over this time period.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Domesticated plants evolve more quickly than their wild-type counterparts, although this is probably by human selection rather than natural selection. This book has some interesting information on this with regard to citrus: Iqrar A. Khan (26 November 2007).
Citrus Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology. CABI. p. 6.
ISBN
978-1-84593-193-3. But it's beyond the scope of this article.
Graham Colm (
talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "An increasing frequency of epidemics and enzootics (in horses) began in 1996." Should "enzootics" be "epizootics"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "In the US, mosquitoes carry the highest amounts of virus in late summer, and the rate of the disease increases in late August to early September." Perhaps "prevalence" rather than "rate"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "They are the most abundant species on Earth." "Species"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "Viruses... help maintain the ecological balance of different species of marine blue-green algae, and thus adequate oxygen production for all other life on Earth." Do plants require oxygen production from blue-green algae?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 3: "The use of bacteriophages to control bacteria was first described by Russian scientists in the 1950s and 1960s." The Wikipedia articles "
Bacteriophage" and "
Phage therapy" describe the
Eliava Institute.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Graham Colm (
talk) 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 4: "Most of this DNA is no longer functional, and a few sequences might occasionally cause harm, but the remainder seem to be harmless." This statement implies three categories of ancient retroviral DNA: "no longer functional", "occasionally cause harm", and "harmless".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", last paragraph: "The debate as to whether viruses are alive continues. In 2000, they were officially declared as non-living by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, but the debate continues." Apart from the duplication with the statement, I am unconvinced that this is relevant to "Friendly viruses". Indeed the categorization of whether viruses are alive or non-living has little to do with "the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history", which is supposed to be the scope of this article. Perhaps just delete the statement.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We have resolved almost all of my concerns above. There are a few outstanding points where Graham Colm has disagreed with me. (These are points that I haven't struck out.) Graham Colm has considered each point on its own merit. In general, I am happy to regard these unresolved points as simple editorial disagreement rather than anything more significant (i.e. something that might prevent GA status).
However I have an ongoing concern about the title of the article. I do not believe that the article's title matches the content. If, for example, I saw an article called "Social history of gorillas", I would not expect it to be about the economic and cultural influence of gorillas on human history. Obviously viruses do not have the capacity to be sociable with one another (at least not in the everyday meaning of the word), leaving the meaning of the current title somewhat mysterious.
A more accurate title might be "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". This implicitly refers to the effect on human societies. Anyway, this is a debate that would benefit from a wider consensus view.
Regarding the GA criteria:-
I am awarding GA status. My thanks and congratulations to Graham Colm. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The polio section ends "As of 2010, outbreaks of infection are still being reported in other countries following importation of polio virus from those regions". Could we mention the assasination of health workers? Something like, "although international polio workers have been assassinated in countries X, Y, and Z, which is hampering progress", perhaps? Biosthmors ( talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
When this article was started, it used UK English. I think the English variant used should be consistent throughout. -- John ( talk) 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason for changing the lead image? I much preferred the Japanese print that was there until recently. Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I peer reviewed this article a few months ago, and have been asked to do a final readthrough and add comments if necessary. This does not constitute a complete review, but the following comments may be helpful. I have also tweaked the prose a bit.
That covers about the first half of the article - I'll post the remaining comments shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A few more nitpicks - not quite through yet:
Brianboulton ( talk) 11:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
General comment: As I have previously observed, this is a very comprehensive article, written in a generally accessible manner that does not create any real barriers for the intelligent non-specialist reader. Aside from the stylistic blips which I have noted above, there is rather too much use of the conjunction "but", especially as a means of beginning a sentence. This occurs twice in the lead, and probably a dozen more times in the main text. In almost every case the leading "But" can simply be removed, and I would advise that this is done.
Article title: I note that the article's GA reviewer has suggest a change of title to "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". To me, the article seems to be about the impact of viruses on society, rather than "social" or "cultural" influences, though I wasn't particularly confused by the existing title. This is a matter to which Graham, as the principal editor, might wish to give further thought before submitting the article to FAC, but for myself, I would not insist on a change.
That concludes these comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the term 100 billion trillion is not so useful. There are many readers who do not know that "billion" and "trillion" mean different numbers in different parts of the world. In any case, my mental arithmetic makes ten-to-the-thirty-one ten billion trillion in Pommie notation. So tell me I'm wrong. How about ten million million million million million? Wikipedia has lots of disc space. Actually it's now ten million million million million million and eleven. Some more hatched while I was typing.... Captainbeefart ( talk) 03:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Very interesting read! I'm wondering if this article would be more appropriately titled "History of virology"? I'd expect a history of viruses article to have more discussion on phylogenetic relationships between different types of viruses, viral evolution, more discussion of genetic reassortments in pandemic influenza viruses, virus origins (eg. like in this paper), etc. Thoughts? Sasata ( talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think foot and mouth disease and possibly canine parvovirus deserve a mention. And maybe avian influenza. Perhaps a short Viruses of animals section is needed? Graham Colm ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The article currently mentions only those discovered up to the late 20th century, and nothing after that. We did have notable virus discoveries in the new millenium, such as SARS coronavirus. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is up to your usual high standard, Graham. I'm making notes as I read though. Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Colin° Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read Dorothy Crawfords' The Invisible Enemy – A Natural History of Viruses ( ISBN 978-0-19-856481-2) which was first published in 2000. Although better written, many of her themes are mirrored in our article. In her book, she discusses the nature of viruses, their discovery, the work of Jenner Pasteur and Beijerinck – although there is little on the origins and evolution. This has led me to think that an interim solution to the problem with the scope of the article might be to rename it Natural history of viruses. Thoughts? Graham Colm ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wondering how it was decided what viruses would be covered? Having worked on Dengue fever recently I see it has only been given cursory mention even though it is the second most important tropical disease after malaria thus the first most important tropical virus. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm having another read through this revised article. Notes as I go..
Colin° Talk 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about renaming the article "Viruses, past, present and future", which is more in keeping with the scope of the article that I am trying to write. Any views on this? Graham Colm ( talk) 10:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an absurdity in the section "Discovery of vaccination". It reads "Six men [served] as the subjects of the public experiment [and] one of them, a nineteen-year-old woman..." I suspect someone will need to access the original source of the information (Tucker, p17) to establish the correct story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmspinks ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Axl ( talk · contribs) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I shall review the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 1: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily." The qualification "In humans" implies that acquired immunity may be passed permanently in non-humans. Is this correct?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The same sentence: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily through breast milk and the antibodies, which cross the placenta from the mother's blood to the unborn child's." I believe that breast milk contains IgA (i.e. antibodies), which are the mechanism of transfer of immunity.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "Humans have lived with herpes virus infections since humans first came into being." Would it be reasonable to link "herpes virus" to "
herpes simplex virus"? The page "
Herpes virus" is a disambiguation page.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "The virus passed to us from other mammals more than 80 million years ago."
Anatomically modern humans arose about 200,000 years ago. More ancient
archaic Homo sapiens arose about 500,000 years ago. I don't think that our 80-million-year old ancestors can really be equated with "us".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "But there is no reason to doubt that early hominids suffered from colds, 'flu and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today." How about: "However it is likely that early hominids suffered from colds, influenza and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today."
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "It is the younger viruses that cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is those that history records." How about: "Younger viruses cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is these that history records." (Actually I'm not sure that "younger" is the right word.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 02:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In "In prehistory", paragraph 3, could you add a reference to the last part of the paragraph please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The close similarities between measles virus, canine distemper virus, and rinderpest virus...", would it be reasonable to link "canine distemper virus" to "
Canine distemper"? "
Canine distemper virus" redirects to "Canine distemper".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The measles virus appears to have fully diverged from the then-widespread rinderpest virus by the 11th and 12th centuries." This should be either "by the 11th century" or "during the 11th and 12th centuries". If it had diverged before the 11th century, obviously it must have diverged before the 12th century.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", paragraph 3: "In more recent times, measles has become extinct on remote islands with populations of fewer than 500,000 people." I wonder if this should be "extirpated" rather than "extinct"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
From "In antiquity", last paragraph: "The plant, later identified as Eupatorium lindleyanum, is often infected with Tomato yellow leaf curl virus." Should "Tomato" have a lower case "T"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Middle Ages", paragraph 2: "The average life expectancy during the Middle Ages was 35 years and 60% of children died before the age of 16, many of them during their first 6 years of life. Among the plethora of diseases common at the time were influenza, measles, and smallpox." It is unclear if these three diseases were a major cause of childhood death. I expect that smallpox was a major cause, while measles was not. I am unsure about influenza.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Middle Ages", last paragraph: "The resulting loss of cattle caused famine and starvation." "Famine" and "starvation" seem to be redundant. Perhaps just "famine"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 3: "Sydenham had been a soldier and fought for the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War." I don't think that this is relevant. Perhaps delete it?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A general comment about the article's title and scope: the opening sentence says: "The social history of viruses describes the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history." Yet most of the article does not describe "economic and cultural influence of viruses". I realize that historical information is mostly unavailable, not least because of the difficulty in distinguishing the different diseases. Despite this, the section "In prehistory" (and parts of other sections) describe the influence of human culture on viruses, rather than the other way around. In the late 20th century, HIV/AIDS had a profound impact on the gay community, leading to cultural changes: use of condoms and possibly a reduction in promiscuity. There was also a lesser impact on the IV drug user community. HIV and viral hepatitis led to a change in the way medical blood products are handled.
The page " History of viruses" redirects to this article. I wonder if this article would be better titled "History of viruses"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 4: "It was probably influenza, although we cannot be sure, because records from the time when medicine was not a science can be unreliable." The latter part of the sentence seems to be unnecessary. It would be sufficient to say "It was probably influenza." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In "Early modern period", could you add a reference to the last part of paragraph 4 please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "References to influenza infections date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, but infections almost certainly occurred long before then. The first that was reliably recorded began in Malta in July 1580, and swept across Europe, Africa, and Asia." I presume that the infection from Malta was a pandemic rather than a general influenza infection?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The first pandemic that was reliably recorded began in July 1580.... More than a century passed before the three pandemics of the 18th century." If the first pandemic was in 1580 and the next was in the 18th century, it is obvious that more than a century passed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The pandemic began in November 1781 in the East Indies." Is the East Indies the same as (modern) India? Would it be reasonable to add "(India)" in the sentence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "the army of Pánfilo de Narváez (1478–1528), who followed Hernán Cortés (1495–1587) from Cuba." I don't think that the dates of birth and death are helpful. Perhaps delete them? Also, I believe that the dates quoted for
Hernán Cortés are inaccurate.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "In the 150 years that followed 1492." I presume that 1492 is relevant because of Columbus' discovery?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Early modern period", paragraph 8: "Further epidemics of the disease occurred in the North Americas." I have not heard the phrase "the North Americas" before. Should this be just "North America"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 1, I would like to see more information about variolation in Istanbul. Also, I think that there is too much detail about Lady Montagu. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 3: "The boy was James Phipps (1788–1853)." This sentence appears as a stand-alone statement, as though it is important of itself. Perhaps combine it with the subsequent sentence: "The boy (James Phipps) survived the experimental inoculation with cowpox virus and suffered only a mild fever." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", last paragraph: "As a result, for the first time in twenty years, there was a severe outbreak of smallpox in Gloucester in 1895." That would make the preceding outbreak well after the introduction of the 1853 Vaccination Act. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 1 states "the disease has been known for over 4000 years" and "The disease has been known since antiquity", which seem to be repetitive.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 3: "A bricklayer had defended the boy from the dog with an iron bar." I don't see why this is relevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", last paragraph: "Little was known about the cause of the disease until 1903 when Adelchi Negri (1876–1912) first saw microscopic lesions in the brains of rabid animals now called Negri bodies." I presume that the lesions were called Negri bodies, rather than the brains or the animals?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
From "20th century", paragraph 1: "the term "filterable virus" was coined to describe them." Is this a misnomer? "Unfilterable virus" would make more sense.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Smallpox eradication", last paragraph: "The eradication campaign was not without casualties." I don't think that the sentence has encyclopedic tone.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", paragraph 3: "In the US, by the mid-1970s the incidence of measles had fallen by 90 percent. This reduction was achieved by a mass vaccination programme that was known as "make measles a memory"." Perhaps re-order the statements to declare the programme first, followed by the fall in incidence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "The use of the vaccine is not without risk, and its use has been controversial." Is this referring to
Andrew Wakefield? In any case, I believe that the
MMR vaccine controversy is relevant to this article, and there should be a couple of sentences about it.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of MMR, I think that the article should mention that mumps and rubella (and chickenpox) have vaccines available, even if there isn't a full discussion of the diseases. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "Measles remains a public health problem in Japan, where it is now endemic and a National Measles Elimination Plan was established in December 2007, with a view to eliminating the disease from the country by 2012." Can we have an update on this please?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", last paragraph: "In 2003, the largest virus by far, mimivirus was discovered to infect amoebae."
Megavirus chilensis is now the largest known virus.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1, perhaps put the information about the 1950s after the information about 1916–17? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1: "The disease was not confined to the US, as many other industrialised countries were affected at the same time." The first half of the sentence is redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 3: "Why a disease that is caused by a virus that is passed from person to person by the faecal-oral route, and only naturally infects humans, became a problem during times of improved sanitation and increasing affluence is a paradox." Can this sentence be simplified please? Perhaps split it into two?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", last paragraph, perhaps put the murders of vaccinators in Pakistan/Nigeria before the murder of a police officer?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "It is now a pandemic, and an estimated 38.6 million people now live with the disease worldwide." Is this the disease (AIDS) or the virus (HIV)?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the same paragraph, there is a discrepancy between that number (38.6 million) and the numbers quoted later: "As of 2010, over 40 million people have been infected and more than 25 million of them have died from AIDS-related diseases."
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The same paragraph duplicates the statement that 25 million have died from AIDS.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "When, in 1981 a scientific article was published that reported the deaths of five young gay men." Although it is implied from the context, perhaps explicitly state that these men were subsequently believed to have died from AIDS?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 2: "This led the World Health Assembly to pass a 1987 resolution." Was this really a "resolution"? Or just a statement?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", paragraph 1: "The last pandemic of the 19th century occurred in 1899 and resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people in Europe alone." Use of the word "alone" implies that many deaths occurred outside Europe. If there is no information about the number of deaths outside Europe, perhaps delete the word "alone"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph: "More than 30 years passed until the next pandemic in 2009." "More than 30 years" seems to be redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to review this article. I appreciate these and further comments; they are most helpful. Graham Colm ( talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph, hasn't improved medical care since the 1918 pandemic helped to reduce the death tolls of subsequent pandemics? Also, wasn't the close crowding of soldiers in trenches at the end of WWI a factor? Sick soldiers were typically transported by train to hospitals well behind the trenches, while mildly ill soldiers remained at the front, spreading the infection.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Influenza virus was not isolated until the 1930s and no samples of the 1918 strain exist. The molecular biology of the renconstructed virus is helping to solve the mystery of its virulence, but I don't think we have a clear-cut answer yet (which would probably be beyond the scope of this article in any case). Your point about the trenches of WW1 is interesting, but very Eurocentric. The infection killed 50 million people worldwide. Trench warfare does not explain how the virus "spread over the whole of [China] like a tidal wave". (Barry p. 172) Or, how "in Sidney it sickened 30% of the population" (ibid) and so on and so forth. With regard to improved medical care, healthcare services cannot cope with pandemics as all subsequent pandemics have shown (including the 2009 one). I doubt very much if improved healthcare can offer any explantion as to why the 1918 pandemic was so lethal.
Graham Colm (
talk) 15:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 1: "There are more than 500 species of arboviruses, but in the 1930s only three were known to cause disease in humans: yellow fever, dengue and
Pappataci fever." Should "yellow fever" and "dengue" also have wikilinks? Should "dengue" properly be called "dengue fever"? Use of the word "dengue" alone to describe the disease seems to be colloquial.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 2: "In 1905, the last major epidemic occurred in the US." This sentence implies that the last major epidemic was in 1905. Perhaps it should read "In 1905, the last major epidemic in the US occurred."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses": "The diseases caused by hepatitis viruses were all recognised before the viruses were discovered." How helpful is this statement? Are there (human) diseases where the virus was discovered before the disease was described?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses", it is worth mentioning that transmission of hepatitis B & C (and HIV) in blood product transfusion has led to a change in the way that blood products are handled. It may also be worth mentioning that used sharp medical instruments (needles, etc.) are carefully disposed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 1: "Viral diseases of livestock can be devastating both to farmers and the wider community as the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2001 has shown." Should "outbreaks" really be plural? (If so, the sentence should end "have shown.")
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 2: "in 1994 the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme was launched by the Food and Agriculture Organization with the aim of global eradication by 2010." Any update on this? If not, perhaps delete "by 2010".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", paragraph 2: "In Ghana by 1977, the mealybug-transmitted cacao swollen root badnavirus caused the loss of 162 million cacao trees." Over what period of time were these 162 million trees lost?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 14:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "The citrus tristeza closterovirus (CTV) was introduced to South America from Africa between 1926 and 1930." Wikipedia has the article "
Citrus tristeza virus". Would it be reasonable to change "closterovirus" to "virus" and add a wikilink?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "By 1950, more than 6 million citrus trees had been destroyed in Brazil." I am not sure what "destroyed" means in this context. Were these trees killed by the virus? Or were the trees killed by farmers in an attempt to prevent spread of the disease?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "CTV and citrus trees probably coevolved for centuries in their original countries." Do citrus trees really evolve over a period of centuries? (I accept that viruses, with their fast life cycles, may well evolve over this time period.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). Domesticated plants evolve more quickly than their wild-type counterparts, although this is probably by human selection rather than natural selection. This book has some interesting information on this with regard to citrus: Iqrar A. Khan (26 November 2007).
Citrus Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology. CABI. p. 6.
ISBN
978-1-84593-193-3. But it's beyond the scope of this article.
Graham Colm (
talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "An increasing frequency of epidemics and enzootics (in horses) began in 1996." Should "enzootics" be "epizootics"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "In the US, mosquitoes carry the highest amounts of virus in late summer, and the rate of the disease increases in late August to early September." Perhaps "prevalence" rather than "rate"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "They are the most abundant species on Earth." "Species"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "Viruses... help maintain the ecological balance of different species of marine blue-green algae, and thus adequate oxygen production for all other life on Earth." Do plants require oxygen production from blue-green algae?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 3: "The use of bacteriophages to control bacteria was first described by Russian scientists in the 1950s and 1960s." The Wikipedia articles "
Bacteriophage" and "
Phage therapy" describe the
Eliava Institute.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Graham Colm (
talk) 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 4: "Most of this DNA is no longer functional, and a few sequences might occasionally cause harm, but the remainder seem to be harmless." This statement implies three categories of ancient retroviral DNA: "no longer functional", "occasionally cause harm", and "harmless".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
From "Friendly viruses", last paragraph: "The debate as to whether viruses are alive continues. In 2000, they were officially declared as non-living by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, but the debate continues." Apart from the duplication with the statement, I am unconvinced that this is relevant to "Friendly viruses". Indeed the categorization of whether viruses are alive or non-living has little to do with "the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history", which is supposed to be the scope of this article. Perhaps just delete the statement.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We have resolved almost all of my concerns above. There are a few outstanding points where Graham Colm has disagreed with me. (These are points that I haven't struck out.) Graham Colm has considered each point on its own merit. In general, I am happy to regard these unresolved points as simple editorial disagreement rather than anything more significant (i.e. something that might prevent GA status).
However I have an ongoing concern about the title of the article. I do not believe that the article's title matches the content. If, for example, I saw an article called "Social history of gorillas", I would not expect it to be about the economic and cultural influence of gorillas on human history. Obviously viruses do not have the capacity to be sociable with one another (at least not in the everyday meaning of the word), leaving the meaning of the current title somewhat mysterious.
A more accurate title might be "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". This implicitly refers to the effect on human societies. Anyway, this is a debate that would benefit from a wider consensus view.
Regarding the GA criteria:-
I am awarding GA status. My thanks and congratulations to Graham Colm. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The polio section ends "As of 2010, outbreaks of infection are still being reported in other countries following importation of polio virus from those regions". Could we mention the assasination of health workers? Something like, "although international polio workers have been assassinated in countries X, Y, and Z, which is hampering progress", perhaps? Biosthmors ( talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
When this article was started, it used UK English. I think the English variant used should be consistent throughout. -- John ( talk) 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason for changing the lead image? I much preferred the Japanese print that was there until recently. Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I peer reviewed this article a few months ago, and have been asked to do a final readthrough and add comments if necessary. This does not constitute a complete review, but the following comments may be helpful. I have also tweaked the prose a bit.
That covers about the first half of the article - I'll post the remaining comments shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A few more nitpicks - not quite through yet:
Brianboulton ( talk) 11:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
General comment: As I have previously observed, this is a very comprehensive article, written in a generally accessible manner that does not create any real barriers for the intelligent non-specialist reader. Aside from the stylistic blips which I have noted above, there is rather too much use of the conjunction "but", especially as a means of beginning a sentence. This occurs twice in the lead, and probably a dozen more times in the main text. In almost every case the leading "But" can simply be removed, and I would advise that this is done.
Article title: I note that the article's GA reviewer has suggest a change of title to "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". To me, the article seems to be about the impact of viruses on society, rather than "social" or "cultural" influences, though I wasn't particularly confused by the existing title. This is a matter to which Graham, as the principal editor, might wish to give further thought before submitting the article to FAC, but for myself, I would not insist on a change.
That concludes these comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the term 100 billion trillion is not so useful. There are many readers who do not know that "billion" and "trillion" mean different numbers in different parts of the world. In any case, my mental arithmetic makes ten-to-the-thirty-one ten billion trillion in Pommie notation. So tell me I'm wrong. How about ten million million million million million? Wikipedia has lots of disc space. Actually it's now ten million million million million million and eleven. Some more hatched while I was typing.... Captainbeefart ( talk) 03:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)