Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rotavirus

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 20:38, 15 March 2008.

---

Rotavirus

Check external links

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have worked on Rotavirus for four months and now I think it is ready. I have been fortunate to have received a lot of help and guidance from very experienced editors and contributors whose names are on the article's Discussion page. (Although this does imply support and any remaining issues are probably all my own work). The WP:MOS has been followed throughout and the images are my own and have been donated freely to the project. The article is stable and the subject is not controversial. The article is written from a neutral point of view and all facts are supported by in-line citations from reliable sources, of which free-content material has been used when it has been possible. In structuring the article I have been mindful of the great variety Wikipedia readers and have placed the more technical/difficult material at the end.--GrahamColm^Talk 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as layperson) Oppose for now Overall the article is pretty good. I did some copy editing, and listed out some stuff to fix below. -Ravedave (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Organization - I think the article structure needs to be reorganized. There are several very short sections which could probably conglomerated. I think that epidemiology could be higher. Look at the AIDS article perhaps?

The article has been restructured many times following the suggestions of other editors and consensus reached. To do this would be going around in circles. Can you be more precise as to what can be conglomerated?--GrahamColm^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "Dehydration is more common with rotavirus infection than with most bacterial pathogens, and is the most common cause of death related to rotavirus infection,[27] but most children recover from the infection.[28]" - "but most children recover from the infection" seems tacked on, especially since children aren't the topic of the first part. I'm not sure how to refactor it.

Yes, I agree with this and have changed the section accordingly.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "Symptomatic reinfections in children are often due to a different rotavirus A serotype." - WHy is the word "children" needed in that sentence? Shouldn't that apply to all ages?

Yes, I agree with this too and I have deleted "children".--GrahamColm^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Please have Prognosis cover the actual prognosis, currently the section just covers complications. Though this section could maybe be lumped in with another

In the well managed child the prognosis is execellent; I can't think of anything to add.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Is the external link a left over reference?

No, it's an excellent free review article written by an expert.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • This virus has been a problem on cruise ships. That should be mentioned.

Thanks for this and I'll address each in turn except the last point: it's Norovirus that cause problems on cruise ships, rotavirus doesn't.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I realized my mistake after I hit submit, so I did a quick google and came up with decent number of hits so I left it. Looking at google again it appears that most of the results are just incidental. -Ravedave (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Graham, don't rush to restructure it. I'm not opposed to changing the structure if it helps, but I'd like to know how combining sections will improve the article. Which are candidates for combination? Epidemiology needs to come after transmission at least but other than that, its location in the article seems arbitrary to me so what is to be gained (or lost) by moving it? AIDS is not IMO a good example of article structure to copy and the two viral subjects could not be more different. Rotavirus has taken the WP:MEDMOS suggested sections and the shortness of some of these is to do with the simplicity of the subject (virus/disease) rather than lack of material or (necessarily) incorrect breakdown of sections. Perhaps some specific suggestions could be made before radical change? Colin°^Talk 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate side note brought to attention through this FAC: AIDS needs to come to featured article review for a much needed tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny. There aren't any other viral FA's are there? Another reason I thought restructuring might be needed is that some a couple facts were being repeated in different sections. This is normal, but it's good to eliminate it when you can. I'll come back tonight with more details on what what I think needs to be re-arranged. -Ravedave (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See Influenza, Tuberculosis and Poliomyelitis. Colin°^Talk 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging of treatment and prognosis is good enough for me. -Ravedave (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this throughout January and February and Graham has dealt with all my concerns. My edits have been minor. This is a comprehensive and well-sourced article on a simple virus and disease that few will know about but nearly all of us have had. Only a knowledgeable enthusiast like Graham could take a diarrhoeal disease to this quality level. Well done. Colin°^Talk 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments all resolved, sources look fine

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm unsure if you should be using abbreviations for the various journals in the references or not. Consider this a question, not a concern.Tuberculosis uses abbreviations, but Exosome complex does not, which isn't much help!

The citations were imported from PubMed using a tool which avoids spelling mistakes. Better to have abbreviations than mistakes I think.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Sandy already set me straight on this one (grins) It's just odd to me (the history major) to see abbreviations in a bibliography. No worries though, different field, different conventions. Ealdgyth

• Support. Some minuscule copyediting issues that will sort themselves out. Nursed to fantastic standard by obvious expert in the field. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything resolved, unequivocal support. delldot talk 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a couple comments, nothing serious to prevent me from supporting:
  • Under history, could the images be right-aligned? I think the MOS discourages left-aligning images at the beginning of sections, and in certain sizes of window the bottom image displaces the header below.

Done.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Could tighten up the wording a little by changing "newborn children" -> "newborns".

I've left this.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Journal article titles should only have capital letters for the first word, words after a colon, proper nouns, etc.

These were all imported using a tool which avoids typos (other)FAs use this method.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it'd be better for them all to be consistent. The tool's just going to copy whatever it draws the info from. Plus, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style says "Do not capitalize every word of the article title—only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash" (emphasis theirs). Not a big deal, I'm just saying. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this.--GrahamColm^Talk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • This one is so minute, I'm embarrassed to even be bringing it up, but some of the journal abbreviations have periods and some don't.

Can we ignore this? --GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, obviously I'm not going to oppose based on it. But would you object to me going through and making them all consistent myself because I really am that neurotic? delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I find them all?--GrahamColm^Talk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "Rotavirus infections rarely cause other complications in the well managed child for whom the prognosis is excellent" would have a different meaning from "Rotavirus infections rarely cause other complications in the well managed child, for whom the prognosis is excellent." Which is it? Maybe this sentence could be reworded, since it makes you do a double-take?

Changed.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • There's another left-aligned image right below the header under Epidemiology.

I've left, (in both senses of the wrod), this one.

Moving it caused a problem with the Table and I'm not v.good at Tables.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "This is partly explained by seasonal changes..." It's better to avoid starting sentences with this, because it's not always clear what the antecedent is.[1]

Done.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much that the this begins the sentence as that its antecedent isn't clear. You could correct it by using one of the fixes recommended in the link I provided before. Again, this [erk!] is an incredibly minor issue. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this; any better?--GrahamColm^Talk 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! delldot talk 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Doesn't MOS discourage latin abbreviations like e.g.?

I don't know, but I changed them anyway.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there any more precise wording that can replace important in sentences like "Rotavirus are an important pathogen of livestock..." and in the lead? Important isn't that informative.

Yes, I've deleted/changed most occurrances.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't know if this is too picky, but since humans are animals, "All seven species cause disease in animals" seems to contradict the previous sentence. Maybe "non-human animals" or "other animals"? Or should we just assume the reader can figure this out?

Changed it a bit.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The images under Structural proteins are pushing down lower sections and making whitespace. What do you think of right aligning these images?

I moved them, but it caused even more whitespace, so I moved them back.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It's kind of a shame to have a See also section with just two links in it. Can these two be integrated into the text? This is another very, very minor thing.

I think Norovirus belongs there because folk often confuse this with rotavirus. To be honest, I'm not a great fan of See also sections.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the same way. Guess not much can be done about it in this case. delldot talk 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I made a few minor edits, feel free to rv me if necessary.
• It really is a great article and I'll have no problem supporting once these little issues are dealt with or I'm corrected in thinking they should be. delldot on a public computer talk 06:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments, it's great when someone reads the article with fresh eyes. Graham.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I really like this article because it is concise, and worded well for a general audience. There are a couple of sentence structure issues - I attempted to fix one, and hope I did so without incorporating any errors! The section on genotype/serotype I'm struggling with - I think it probably just needs a good copyedit. I see you're not too keen on reorganising sections again Graham, but I wondered if Prevention should be adjacent (or incorporated) to treatment? And in the Epidemiology section, the term "seroepidemiological surveys" is introduced without defining what seroepidemiological means. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been reorganised more times than a Rubik cube and, although not dismissing the suggestion entirely, I'm v. reluctant to do anything major at this late stage given the positive responses above. The genotype and serotype issue confuses even the experts and no doubt it will be rationalised by them before long - best leave it for now. I will define seroepidemiogy. Thanks for the comments. Graham.--GrahamColm^Talk 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support because I like the content and importance to a wide audience. I still think the wording needs a little tweaking and some words need wikilinking on their first mention, but I've seen much worse. Good luck! ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.