From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeVariants of SARS-CoV-2 was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2022 Good article nomineeNot listed

WHO citation "Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants" [4]

In the main section of the article, citation 4 is listed as "failed verification" because its most recent listed accessed date is 2022 and the sentence citing the page lists a date in 2024. This WHO page ( link) is updated frequently. At time of writing, the apparent most recent update was 15 April 2024, when an updated risk evaluation for JN.1 was added, and the page itself claims to be up to date as of 3 May 2024. What is the appropriate way to cite a single URL which updates frequently? 184.62.88.78 ( talk) 20:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

will look-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

FLiRT

I'm somewhat reluctant to start a new section, but my source mentions this variant and doesn't say it began in 2023. If it didn't start in 2023, it must have started in 2024.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Tang paper / Retraction watch

Retraction watch has flagged an erratum re the Tang paper. The authors write: "We now recognize that within the context of our study the term “aggressive” is misleading and should be replaced by a more precise term “a higher frequency”. In short, while we have shown that the two lineages naturally co-exist, we provided no evidence supporting any epidemiological conclusion regarding the virulence or pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2..." My impression is that the elements of the retraction don't affect the words currently used in this article. Could this be checked by an expert? Yadsalohcin ( talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Omicron in lead section

The sentence in lead section "As of June 2024, only Omicron is designated as a circulating variant of concern by the World Health Organization." is incorrect. The website itself (updated on 5 June 2024) used as a source for this sentence doesn't list any circulating VoCs.

This WHO's statement from 16 March 2023 states "With these changes factored in, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta as well as the Omicron parent lineage (B.1.1.529) are considered previously circulating VOCs."

Omicron's sublineages and their descendants were given separate labels such as VOI and VUM. KapSoule ( talk) 11:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeVariants of SARS-CoV-2 was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2022 Good article nomineeNot listed

WHO citation "Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants" [4]

In the main section of the article, citation 4 is listed as "failed verification" because its most recent listed accessed date is 2022 and the sentence citing the page lists a date in 2024. This WHO page ( link) is updated frequently. At time of writing, the apparent most recent update was 15 April 2024, when an updated risk evaluation for JN.1 was added, and the page itself claims to be up to date as of 3 May 2024. What is the appropriate way to cite a single URL which updates frequently? 184.62.88.78 ( talk) 20:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

will look-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

FLiRT

I'm somewhat reluctant to start a new section, but my source mentions this variant and doesn't say it began in 2023. If it didn't start in 2023, it must have started in 2024.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Tang paper / Retraction watch

Retraction watch has flagged an erratum re the Tang paper. The authors write: "We now recognize that within the context of our study the term “aggressive” is misleading and should be replaced by a more precise term “a higher frequency”. In short, while we have shown that the two lineages naturally co-exist, we provided no evidence supporting any epidemiological conclusion regarding the virulence or pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2..." My impression is that the elements of the retraction don't affect the words currently used in this article. Could this be checked by an expert? Yadsalohcin ( talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Omicron in lead section

The sentence in lead section "As of June 2024, only Omicron is designated as a circulating variant of concern by the World Health Organization." is incorrect. The website itself (updated on 5 June 2024) used as a source for this sentence doesn't list any circulating VoCs.

This WHO's statement from 16 March 2023 states "With these changes factored in, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta as well as the Omicron parent lineage (B.1.1.529) are considered previously circulating VOCs."

Omicron's sublineages and their descendants were given separate labels such as VOI and VUM. KapSoule ( talk) 11:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook