Talk:Respiratory syncytial virus

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move 27 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move with unanimous support. Thanks, and happy editing! (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Human orthopneumovirus → Respiratory syncytial virus – The WP:COMMONNAME as given by WP:MEDRS. This should be a case of WP:IAR with regard to the ICTV name because readers of all levels will be looking for the RSV name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Guidelines § Article titles states: In general, the Latin name should be redirected to the common name and the common name used for article titles. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. There are dozens of other such cases where a page was moved from the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME to an ICTV title without discussion, and an incorrect "formerly known as" added to the intro. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Þjarkur: do you remember if it's just the ones listed on the move logs for Awkwafaba (talk · contribs · logs)? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That was what I was referring to, but since Awkwafaba has practically singlehandedly kept our virus names correctly updated I don't think you'll be able to find the handful of medical-related viruses that have common names in those logs. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to common name, which is used far more frequently. (Note that in this instance, the common name is also a former taxonomic name). Velayinosu (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: just waiting for destination article to be deleted to make way for move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEducation Project

Hello everyone, I will be focusing on this article as a WikiEducation project. I am planning to address the following:

REFERENCES: Several of sections (namely the signs and symptoms, evolution, taxonomy, and diagnosis) have minimal to no citations. Additionally, of the 27 articles currently included in the references, several of them appear to be primary scientific research [4, 6, 11, 13, 19, 20, 26], rather than secondary sources which are preferred for this platform. This introduces possible bias. Additionally, a few others are outdated [1, 18]. Most of the included citation links do link out effectively.

CONTENT: I would like to make the following changes / additions to the general structure of the article:

Signs and symptoms: Add subcategories for various presentations of the virus (pediatric, immunocompromised, etc.). Note: there is a lot of contradictory / inconsistent information in this section. It will need to be fact checked / streamlined. Flesh out the subsection on complications.

Cause: Add risk Factors subsection. Virology subsection: adjust the order (taxonomy > structure > genome > evolution). Consider adding life cycle. Note: all of these sections are overly technical and will need to be adjusted for readability. Remove Transmission subsection (wrong location).

Mechanism (add this heading): Move information about transmission here. Add subsection on pathophysiology.

Diagnosis: Add subsections for laboratory testing & imaging findings

Prevention: Add subsections on general prevention & palivizumab

Treatment: Add subsections on supportive treatments, antivirals, etc.

Outcomes (add this heading)

Epidemiology (add this heading): Subsections on children, immunocompromised, geriatrics

History: Rename the “Discovery” header as “History” (per the style guidelines)

Research: Move below the history header (per the style guidelines). Add subsections of RSV vaccine and RSV + covid. Paraphrase current section instead of having a direct excerpt from RSV Vaccine page.

EXPANSION REQUESTS: Several sections have been noted as requiring expansion, including “Virology Structure” (info on F and G proteins) and “Discovery” (info on the influence of bovine RSV research).

IMAGES: Move the classification image / box to the top of the page (plus add additional images of the virus). Bring the chest x-ray image down to diagnosis. Add additional images to the virology section (such as life cycle).

Does anyone have any questions, concerns, or ideas? I appreciate your help and feedback, and am excited to work with you all to improve this article!

Best, ACMetro (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ACMetro: welcome! I don't know how active the article talk is, so whenever you need more eyes, please feel free to ask WikiProject Viruses.
I added the expansion requests based on off-wiki comments from a friend who worked with RSV. She said if the article mentions RSV in cattle, it might as well discuss bovine RSV research and how it has affected HRSV research (or research techniques, I don't recall). F and G proteins specifically mean detailing their structure and function, as they are important research targets, especially for vaccine development, and even for clinical purposes and for understanding how RSV works. Of course, she also mentioned that the vaccine failure needs adequate coverage, as it's informing more recent discussions on COVID-19 vaccine development.
Tread carefully with the primary sources. If you take a look at the archived discussions, at least one editor has mentioned promotion of one product over another. My friend mentioned that with regard to the old External links section, which is why that section doesn't exist anymore. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMed Peer Review

Peer Review from last week

General Info

I am reviewing ACMetro’s work.

Link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_syncytial_virus


Lead Section: Good

-         The first sentence states the article topic concisely and accurately.

-         All the information included is also present in the body.

-         Although it summarizes most major points, there are some important aspects of the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment that should also be included in this section.


Content/Organization: Excellent

-         Very good work on the organization of the page. There are very clear and appropriate headings and subheadings that make it easier to read. I can tell you put a lot of work into this.

-         The content you added enhances the quality of the article!

-         I did not notice any grammatical/spelling errors.

-         Readability is appropriate for the lay audience.

-         Content is complete and your links are appropriate.


Tone and Balance: Excellent

-         Tone in your writing is neutral and appropriately focuses on stating the information in an unbiased manner.

Sources and References: Excellent

-         It is awesome to see that you added a large number of references that are mainly secondary and tertiary resources!

-         Your references are also mainly all up to date. I noticed some older papers from the 1950s, but it seems those references are associated with statements made in the History section (which is appropriate).

-         The few links that I checked worked effectively.


Images and Media: Excellent

-         Under the Cause section I appreciate your use of images to describe the virology. It allows for better visualization of the structure and life cycle of the virus.

-         Well done on the captions.


Overall Impressions: Excellent

Overall, your additions to this article are very apparent and definitely has improved the overall quality of this article. The organization, completeness, and readability really stand out to me. I appreciate your use of images and media to add context to the text. I am looking forward to seeing how you will add to the lead section to improve its completeness. Anicm1 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne?

From what I can see, RSV is not generally considered an airborne virus but one transmitted via surfaces (e.g. PMID:11052396). Has thinking changed on this more recently than this 2000 source? Bon courage (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this CDC source, updated very recently, focuses on droplets and surfaces. Crossroads -talk- 18:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image of RSV is uninformative. This one is much better: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/experimental-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccine-prompts-antibody-surge Since it's government, it might be non-copyright. 71.213.63.77 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That image is already in the article, so I just moved it up to the infobox instead. If anyone contests the edit, they can discuss it here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Respiratory_syncytial_virus"