Talk:Negative-sense single-stranded RNA virus

The information we added onto the second half of this page is for an assignment for a class we are all currently enrolled in. We generated the information on a separate sandbox page, which the link I attached below, and are willing to comply to any additional edits or comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wolverine1721/sandbox

Untitled

Peer Review for MLZ Reviewer: Tessa Peixoto Regarding First Draft ENGW3307

Summary: (-)ssRNA viruses are in the single stranded virus class because of the polarity of their strand. They are part of the baltimore class system as Group V. They require their negative strand to be replicated to be complimentary to a positive strand, which when it is converted to a positive strand it will become infectious. They use RNA polyemerase and or transcriptase in replication all occurring in the cytoplasm of the host cell.

Major Points: I do not know spanish so I wouldn't be able to tell if translation was successful however, the article does read well that it does not seem that it was translated. The information needs a bit more organizing which can come with structuring the article with the sections that will lead the reader step by step through what and how negative sense strand RNA viruses come to be. The figure in the article is a good aid to understand how it is classed. It is suggested that since microbiology is a very complex topic, link to various articles so that the reader has the option to understand topics and or names as they read on. For instance, link to a DNA replication page when discussing translation and transcription (maybe even link both translation and transcription), link to open reading frame page because without knowing much about genetics the reader may be lost. Link virions and RNA polymerase. It is obvious this article is still in the works, but as information is added to it, it will be a fuller article. And once completed may act as link for the existing RNA virus page. An example for structure could be based from other pages discussing viruses to help understand how to organize information like the Hepatitis C virus and or virus. In the replication section, I am confused as to what you are doing by placing virus names in parenthesis when discussing genome types (The genome could be unsegmented by various open reading frames (Filoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, and Rhabdoviridae),.....etc). It is suggested to explain what the named bacteria have to do with the genome type just so it is more direct with the information. I also am slightly confused by the purpose of the table of Protein synthesis, Gene replication and enzyme, is it summarizing what was discussed in the replication steps? The species sections needs attention which can be by adding information on how the viruses infect those certain species, what of those species makes them ideal hosts.

Minor Points: Note that in the table in the replication section polymerases is spelled polimerases. Also a figure for the replication steps may be useful to assist the reader in having a visual aid. The bullet points at the end of the article should be numbered as they are being referred to as two subgroups, perhaps add the names of the subgroups or better represent the differnce. Also reword the bullet points as the phrasing sounds off (this is probably where the translation needs fixing up). The note also at the end of the article should be incorporated in the replication section, perhaps when the steps are being discussed or right after. In the species section, be more specific when the author says "these viruses", it can be inferred that the author if referring to negative sense strand viruses, but as seen in the article there are subgroups to the negative sense strand viruses, so specificity is required. Overall work on citing more often as more information is gathered and used. Telupei (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary This article is a translation of an existing Wikipedia article from Spanish to English on the topic of negative-sense single strand RNA. This is a type of virus that does not replicate with a host DNA intermediate. This article details the process of RNA replication as well as the process of virus infection in the host cells.

Major Points As a Wikipedia article, this is close, but could still use some help. The author noted that there would be more information to come and I believe that will help to round out this topic. As it stands right now, the article is informative, but very choppy. Adding further detail to explain the properties of these viruses as well as the process they go through would be a good place to start. The format of this article is not truly in the Wikipedia style. I would start by adding an opening summary section or overview explaining what these viruses are and the connections that are going to be made throughout the rest of the article. Changing the approach of the section break down could also help to improve the feel of the article. Sub-categories and more defined sections would be a good start. Try looking at other Wikipedia articles for ideas on how to format this context box. As it is the first thing people see when they enter the page, it should be a more appropriate starting spot. I would also consider editing the contents of the photo caption. All of the different species named are not explained as such. It seems like a long repetitive list rather than useful information. This should be the spot for the quick hitting information people are looking for in a hurry.

Minor Points The most glaring point here is the lack of proper sourcing. There are numerous facts and pieces of information without any citation. This would not pass a Wikipedia review. On the same point, there is a lack of citable material in general. For a more informative and powerful article, more sources need to be added. I would also consider restructuring the section regarding the process of replication. The list of steps may warrant its own section all together. Then there is a chart that seems out of place directly after the replication steps, followed by more information on the viruses in a bulleted format. These areas should have their own expanded sections. It is also not too often that there is bulleted information on a Wikipedia article. Try to form these points into flowing paragraphs instead.

This is close, keep up the solid work! Ski1823 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2016

Topic Peer Review 1

The introductory section on the current wiki page seems like it could use more content. Giving a short history of negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (i.e when they were first observed and classified) as well as including some well-known examples such as influenza, rabies and measles even if they are mentioned again in the article, will give the reader a quick background of the topic. Links to important terms in the new additions should be added for terms such as RNA, inflammatory cytokines, and the three NSV families. The length of each section is appropriate for the content it is covering, though more could be added for “Molecular Mechanisms of Innate Antiviral Immune Inhibition” since it is such a large topic. Possibly including an example and figure to support the statement that NNSVs can interrupt IFNs or pro-inflammatory cytokines would give the reader more context and help with visualization of this action. A figure should be added to the article to illustrate a point that is being made. The references are numerous, complete, and consistent with the standard Wikipedia format. Though all references are in published journals, the referenced papers are all freely available without subscription. The work in these additions seems to be original and well supported by the literature and is not a duplicate of another Wikipedia page. Overall this is a well written and well researched addition to the negative-sense single-stranded RNA ((-)-ssRNA) virus Wikipedia page. The group did a good job addressing important aspects of the topic such as life cycle and innate immune responses that were not covered in the original article. The addition of these sections will give the reader a more detailed understanding of (-)-ssRNA viruses. Some points of improvement would be in the introductory paragraph with the addition of further background and classification of (-)-ssRNA viruses and how a layperson might relate to this topic. The addition of a figure would further illustrate many points made in the article, especially those in the “NNSV-Mediated Inhibition of IFN Inhibition” section, since signaling pathways are hard to visualize (see Figure 2 of Chatterjee, S, et. al). It would also be helpful if the section on innate antiviral immunity inhibition was expanded, since this is probably the broadest topic covered in the article. The references are appropriate and the layout of the article is well thought out. Cblanken28 (talk)

Peer Review 2 and 3

The introduction available on the Wikipedia page seems sufficient but a little too brief. For example it mentions that the words positive oir negative depend on the sense or polarity of the strand but it does not mention that Negative-sense (3' to 5') viral RNA is complementary to its positive sense viral mRNA and the positive-sense RNA must be produced by an RNA polymerase, which is usually found in the virion. I would also recommend a picture of the difference between positive and negative sense RNA. Something like this. Also it would be good to give people quick examples of negative sense RNA like the ones stated in the article for example Ebola. The introduction on the wikipedia page was easily understandable so it does not need editing. The content of the sections are sufficient you might consider adding whether the negative sense RNA replicate through lytic or lysogenic replication. You are missing links for words such as interferons, cytokines, and some others. I feel like you could add more information to the topic about NSV LIfe Cycle and Replication. This is a big difference between positive and negative sense RNA and feel that it should be discussed more for example talking about the extra machinery involved in the negative sense strands. In the section about RNA synthesis Machinery seems a little too long and as a reader I get lost reading through the whole thing. I recommend cutting it down a bit and breaking up the section. I also recommend adding a figure for this section because it is vital for understanding negative RNA and why it's called negative stranded. Your references are complete however they are all journal sources it's possible to find some textbook sources for this broad topic. All in all I think your article is really well done I love how it is organized and it brings new information about negative strand RNA into Wikipedia. I think the users will be thankful for the extra information. I believe you should make some more parts more easily read for the average reader like the first section. Also use more links because that allows the reader to quickly go back and forth between two articles to help fulfill the readers understanding. Other than those a job well done thanks guys. Mohamed Ghandour — Preceding unsigned comment added by H12B (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The introduction is good, could use a bit more background in regards to the topic. Possibly linking other pages that discuss different RNA synthesis machinery, and using that point to give e brief overview of the differences for negative-stranded RNA viruses. Also linking some pages then utilizing larger words such as segmented versus non-segmented RNA, VSV, and interferons. This way individuals who aren't as well versed are able to have a better idea as to what the topic is. It seems that there is already a page discussing Negative Sense Single Stranded RNA Virus that just covers the replication, families, and range of viruses. If this were to be added to this published site, I would attempt to expand more on the inhibitions of the virus it self. it seems like the "Molecular Mechanisms" and "NNSV" have the same information typed up on both topics. SO moving forward trying to describe the distance differences between the two as it plays a role to RNA synthesis. It may help to include a figure that can assist in solidifying the information for the reader and have a image to rely on. The structure overall is complete and addresses different aspects of the topic as a whole. The sources all seem to come from journals so trying to find other sources from news articles or other media that non-expert readers may take from All in all what you already have is a great starting point. Restructuring the information and creating a smoother introduction will go along way in helping the reader have a reference when reading about NSV and the inhibition and replication of the virus type. Though there were some subtopics within the article which others may not have prior knowledge about, the authors did a good job of relating the synthesis of RNA within NVS and the differences between the segmented and non-segmented NVS. Again if you can expand on the distinct differences in the "Molecular Mechanisms" and "NNSV" inhibition this would allow some clarity for the reader. Tembopride (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 4 and 5

Overall, your Wikipedia article is very thorough. I would recommend that you add to the intro so that the information you choose to include is given more relevance. The length of each section is adequate. However, given how much information you include and how in-depth some of it is, you should link important terms for casual readers. The content is not duplicative of any other content on Wikipedia as far as I have seen, so you do a good job with respect to that. It seems that no figure were added, so I am unable to comment on your figures. Your references, while complete (5+), are all journal sources. Throwing in some variation is important. Overall, it looks good. Hopefully, upon integration with the existing Wikipedia page, people will be able to learn about negative sense single stranded RNA Viruses. --Amhammoud5 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, Jason, Shaan, and Sahithi for sharing your Wikipedia article for peer review. I really appreciate your organization into specific subject matters and the information regarding these topics are specific but not too overwhelming for casual readers. However, your summary on RNA Synthesis Machinery could be further divided into two categories. Where you start “Catalytic activity…” could be a subset of the “RNA Synthesis Machinery” topic. When you have a chunk of information to begin with, it could distract the readers and lead readers astray through too much information. You got to slowly lead them in. Furthermore, to slowly lead the readers into a well organized piece, I recommend that you start off with a background/introduction information generally defining your topic in couple of sentences. Usually users read the introduction then decide if this piece is what they were looking for. I also realized that you have not attached words to the its appropriate links throughout the paper. This attachment mode in Wikipedia is essential since it can help readers guide through the paper without being lost by words that the readers don’t know or understand. Therefore, add attachment links all throughout your paper. Lastly, I realized your piece doesn’t have a figure which makes the paper mundane and extremely hard to follow. Few ideas for a figure could be a figure of the NSV ribonucleoproteins or a scheme of the mechanism of innate antiviral immune inhibition. There could be many ways you could add a figure, so discuss about this and compromise on which figures you guys can utilize to deliver an effective article. Again the “Common Mechanism for RNA Encapsidation by NSVs” could further be divided into subsets like “Structure” for second and third paragraph, “Mechanism” for third and fourth paragraphs. Overall, your Wiki article’s content of information is thorough and specific enough for casual readers, like us, to read. However, it could improve further on organization that can guide readers effectively and add attachment links on words since I had trouble with few words that I had to search myself to know what they were. Use as much links as possible because these scientific topics could be hard for readers to follow unless they are researchers themselves. Thank you for sharing your draft and I hope to see great improvements on your final copy.

Sungyeob (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from the librarians

It would be helpful to know how much of the original article you're planning to keep in your revision: the existing Taxonomy and Host Range sections, for example, include content that is not represented in your rewrite. Your rewrite also seems substantially more technical than the existing articles on other virus types - see Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus and DNA virus for examples. Keep in mind that your target audience is not necessarily other advanced students of biochemistry. Some of your text might make more sense as additions to articles on, for example, Infection or related articles. Finally, you'll need to be substantially more aggressive in linking technical terms in your article to their respective Wikipedia articles. ScottMLibrary (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Improvement Plans

Based on the feedback provided by our fellow classmates and the librarians, we spent a great deal of our time editing the format of our text, focusing on using more references, hyperlinking the proper text, and general outline of the information. In addition, we added images to the text in order to support the ideas being discussed within each body of text. We tried to provide representative images to help portray the pathways or structures specifically highlighted within certain regions. In addition, we tried to modify portions of our text to accommodate the common user- using more understandable terms in order to create an easier read for every reader. We did combine this with more hyperlinking in order to provide the necessary resources for every reader to follow along with the text. Overall, our edits followed the recommendations of our peers in order to create an easier body of text to follow for the common user and adhere to the positive aspects of the general Wikipedia page. Wolverine1721 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Bunyavirales

This order created by the ICTV will require additional changes to several other pages. The genera in the Bunyavirus have been mostly elevated to family level. Several additional families have been created for viruses that were not part of the Bunyavirus order. This will take a few days unless a lot of people step up to the plate.Virion123 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Negative-sense single-stranded RNA virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023235735/http://www.microbelibrary.org/library/virus/2768-viral-replication-strategy-in-negative-sense-single-stranded-rna-viruses to http://www.microbelibrary.org/library/virus/2768-viral-replication-strategy-in-negative-sense-single-stranded-rna-viruses

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Update needed

The article needs to be updated to the ICTV 2018 classification; in this, taxa at ranks of family and above are not all in the same Baltimore virus group. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)