Wikipedia:Peer review/Social history of viruses/archive1

Social history of viruses

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been writing this article, on and off, for about two years. Originally it was too broad in scope, so I moved substantial sections to History of virology, Viral evolution and Animal virus. It has recently been promoted to GA, following a thorough, productive and enjoyable review. I plan to nominate it at FAC but I would appreciate a peer review beforehand. I would be grateful for any comments. There has been some debate about the title, so I am open to any suggestions. Thanks, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to review the article again, but I shall list some points for improvement.

• The article's title must be changed. My own suggestion is "Economic and cultural influence of viruses".
• A paragraph on rubella would be helpful.
• The integration of separate vaccines into MMR should be mentioned.
• A brief description of childhood vaccination programmes would be helpful.
• Try to update old references where appropriate.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. Unfortunately, your suggestion for the title does not include the word "history" – which is the main theme of the article – and implies only contemporary influences. I will add a paragraph on rubella and mention the introduction of the triple vaccine and include a little on other childhood vaccination programmes to prevent viral infections where appropriate. Rotavirus may be need a mention, but it might be too early to say what social changes the relatively recent introduction of the vaccine has brought about. I will check the older references, but I doubt whether the historical material I have used from "Hepatitis Viruses of Man" (1979), for example can be bettered. Graham Colm (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also human papillomavirus and its vaccine. Oncogenic potential of some viruses, notably HPV and possibly others such as Epstein–Barr virus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already prepared a section on this for the History of virology article (where EBV is already mentioned): User:GrahamColm/Sandbox/Warts We are in danger of losing focus here. This article is about the social history, it is not about virology, clinical virology, or the history of virology. Much of what you suggest does not belong in this article.Graham Colm (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

As a non-scientist I am finding the article full of interest, a fascinating extension of my knowledge. The prose is reader-friendly, though there is a general problem with punctuation, particularly the use of commas. I have been fixing these as I read through, rather than listing them, and I have made a few other small prose fixes that seemed necessary - details in the edit history.

I am about a third of the way through my reading, and will try and make some further progress this evening. Meantime, here are my observations to date:

• "Origins" section: although there are two main article links, I think the text here needs a little more detail, to justify a main section in this article.
• "Prehistory": You say "Smallpox ... first emerged among agricultural communities in India several thousand years ago". Later you say that "In about 9000 BC ... the population became dense enough for the virus to maintain a constant presence". That's eleven thousand years ago at least, and the word "several" seems inappropriate, since "several" usually implies no more than half a dozen, at most.
• "In antiquity":

• "One measles infection...": "one" can mean either "any single", or "one particular". I think you mean the former, but perhaps clarify.
• The sentence about America and Australia might be better placed in a later section, rather than "Antiquities"

• "Middle Ages"

• The short first sentence is unnecessary
• Clarify that the life expectancy figures refer to Europe.

• "Early modern period"

• "It was probably influenza..." - "It" needs defining
• "we cannot be sure" - the prose should remain impersonal (encyclopedic neutrality and all that) Likewise "We read of...", and maybe other instances
• Location (Mexico) of the Aztec capital would help many readers
• Four pics in the section is over-imaging, particularly as positioned to cause squeezing of the text. I'd recommend dropping at least one, and repositioning.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Brian. I have acted on your advice on all of these points. Graham Colm (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another segment:

• "Discovery of vaccination":

• In the context, "but survived" is perhaps stating the obvious.
• You could link the "Prince and Princess of Wales"; that would be the future King George II and Caroline of Ansbach
• At what stage did variolation become known as "inoculation"? I note that you later revert to the use of "variolation"

Variolation refers specifically to smallpox. Inoculation is a generic term for vaccination. I did not want to use "vaccination" because this is a later word (circa 1800). In this article, for all intents and purposes, the two terms mean the same thing. "Inoculate" is the earlier term, first used in this context in around 1722. (Earlier it had horticultural meanings such as grafting buds on to plants). "Variolate" meaning to inoculate specifically with smallpox matter was first used in English around 1792. Graham Colm (talk)

• No source is given for the supposed present values of £5 or £10. Present-day values of ancient (in this case 300-year-old) sums of money is a minefield; some editors place their faith in Measuringworth.com, that offers a theoretical basis for calculating present values which is highly complex and produces many implausible findings, e.g. that an income of £4 in the 1890s equates to an income of £1600 in 2013. I don't recommend that you use this source. I would say that the British economies of 1713 and 2013 are too dissimilar for any comparisons to be meaningful, and suggest you simply drop the equivalent amounts.
• Isn't it a slight overstatement to say that "At the time nothing was known about viruses or immunity"?

Certainly nothing was known about viruses. I have linked immunity to immune system because nothing was known about this too. Graham Colm (talk)

• What is the source for the parenthetical statement that Jenner "was probably not the first to do so"?
• In what year were the Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed?
• I'm not sure I understand "As a result..." As a result of what?

• "Louis Pasteur and rabies":

• "In France during the time of Louis Pasteur..." You need to specify when this time was.
• "Aware of the extreme danger..." - I don't think "extreme danger" has been established; perhaps "potential danger"? Also I'd delete the words "...worked on what he knew would be a challenge, and..." as unnecessary padding
• I'm afraid I got awfully confused by the story of the dried spinal cords. I think the second paragraph of this section requires further attention to clarify exactly what was done to what animal(s) and with what result.

• "20th and 21st centuries":

• "Two others – measles and poliomyelitis – could be": What does "could be" actually imply?
• "our efforts" is too personal. Delete "our"

• "Smallpox eradication":

• "it had killed 300 million people since 1900" - you need to specify a date, e.g. "by 19xx it had killed..." etc
• Give a few more details of the death of Janet Barker, and the reasons for the suicide of Henry Bedson
• Why did the 9/11 attacks prevent the planned destruction of the smallpox virus?

• "Measles"

• No specific points. A couple of prose/punc fixes

• "Poliomyelitis"

• "During the summers of the mid-20th century, parents dreaded the annual appearance of poliomyelitis..." Do you mean parents everywhere, or just in US, or UK, or other specific places?
• "1–2 percent": Is this representing between 1 and 2 percent, or half a percent?
• Can you briefly amplify the reasons for the murders in Pakistan and Nigeria?

I have but I might have opened a can of worms. Graham Colm (talk)

Hopefully I'll finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Brian for these astute observations. I have addressed these points. Graham Colm (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My final comments

• "AIDS"

• Would it be possible to begin this section with a very brief differentiation of "AIDS" from "HIV"? Many non-specialists treat the terms as interchangeable, an idea strengthened by your: "over 36 million people had HIV or AIDS". Are they one and the same?

• "Influenza"

• No comments

• "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses"

• Does the section need to start with "The..."?
• "More than 100 of these viruses..." → "More than 100 of such viruses..."

• "Hepatitis viruses"

• It is a bit confusing to read that hepatitis A and hepatitis B were named as such in 1947, but then: "The first virus discovered that could cause hepatitis was hepatitis B in the 1960s. Hepatitis A virus was not discovered until 1974."

• "Epizootics"

• The section title is unexplained in the text. What does it mean?
• I think "Vladimir Lenin" could be just "Lenin", and I'm not sure that he "passed" laws. He may have "approved" them.
• "Influenza is mainly a disease of pigs and birds, but not humans" - Am I reading this correctly? Or am I a pig? (or a bird?)

• "Agriculture"

• "The disease was first recorded in 1894 and outbreaks of the disease occurred in eastern Africa throughout the century..." - presumably you mean throughout the 20th century?
• "The sweet potato whitefly ... can cause damage that costs millions of US dollars". And, presumably, millions of other currency units, unless it is confined to the US.
• "25–50 percent": I think "between 25 and 50 percent" is clearer
• "Such disasters occurred when human intervention caused ecological changes by introducing crops..." I think: "by the introduction of crops"
• I'm afraid that terms like "the highly efficient aphid vector" mean nothing to laypersons like myself and, at the very least, need a link.

• "Emerging viruses"

• "it was all over" seems slightly casual language in a scientific article

• "West Nile virus"

• "febrile woman": use this link, or the more familiar "feverish"
• Phrases such as "principal bridge vector" may be problematic for the general reader, although I appreciate it is not always possible to avoid scientific language.

• "Friendly viruses"

• I'm not sure that everyone will know what number "10³¹" represents. They will know it's large (a billion trillion trillion I think), but it might be an idea to be more specific.
• Link archaea
• "...novel ways of combating bacterial infections are sought." Should be "are being sought".

• Ref formats: I haven't checked these in detail, but I noticed a couple of spaces missing, in the are refs for r.6 and r.17
• Other issue: I think the lead ought to be expanded, so that it is truly a summary of the whole article. I also think the lead image is unimpressive; several of those used in the main article would serve the purpose better.

I think this is an important article, and am sure that with a bit more polishing and finalising it will make an excellent FA. It may be as well, however, to get it checked out by someone with expert knowledge. Subject to that, I look forward to its appearance at FAC - I'd be prepared to give it a final readthrough before you nominate, if you like; just ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian, thanks times 10³¹ for this review. Your are right about the Lead (always the most difficult to get right in my experience). I will address all these issues in due course. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have incorporated these suggestions. I am working on the Lead in my sandbox. Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)