|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Viral hepatitis.
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Viruses||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- Probably not. TT and the related viruses do not appear to cause liver inflammation - as far as is presently known - ruling out a role in hepatitis. TT seems to be a virus that is found in humans which appears to be non pathogenic.DrMicro (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Be careful about overlinking the article, it takes away the potential emphasis (something critical that you would not expect the average reader to understand) and confuses the reader onto which article to go to next. WP:OVERLINK ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can find the families of the respected viruses in their own articles—look for the taxobox, although I would question the necessity. While comparing the images and the table, there are some missing points such as "Chronic Hepatitis" and "Symptoms"; although it may be reasonable to assume that some of them may be unnecessary, I can add them if you want (use the colspan attribute to get table cells to stretch across multiple columns).
A lot of the information in the table are provided in the linked articles, and reproducing (here at least) seems to be an overemphasis and a perhaps a waste. In my opinion I believe the best course of action would be to begin a section in Viral hepatitis discussing the multiple viruses holistically (in prose) with this table giving a quick and easy method of understanding the comparisons. I can begin if you guys want, however let's try for a consensus first so that we don't have to keep revising each other's edits. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The 'Chronic hepatitis' column can be added.The details can be limited to 'No' and 'Yes' if the % details make the table cluttered.
This table can be moved to Viral hepatitis too as it is. We can add more clinical features and treatment modalities of the different hepatitis which will probably make the table relevant in an article on hepatitis.I favor tables and believe its easier for new readers to understand the facts when they can be effortlessly compared.Also it may be alright to float the table to the right of the list of links in subsection 'Types' so that it doesnt expand the article vertically. Nishanthb (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've finished moved the table with some brief prose into the lead of the section "Types", there are several fields left to filled out and the lead needs some more description to help the reader understand the differences between the numerous viruses. The table is too wide to be floated and would be unsightly for readers on low-resolution displays, however I believe the current position is acceptable as is.
The table appears to loose focus into several areas: Transmission is epidemiological interest, Classification through Antigens Virological interest, and Incubation period Medical interest. Perhaps we can divided it along those lines to allow the reader to more quickly determine what they are looking at. There are a few more fields I've added a box to the top so that we can add the fields we want and cross out (<s>text</s>) what would be deemed as unnecessary. Other than we can add prose according to relative emphasis (remember that each virus has an article of its own, some even have two: one for the disease and one for the virus itself). ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The details in white board seem good and this can provide a peek into the topic for the readers who would not be interested in too many details.
http://www.easygoodhealth.com/get-healthy/cure-rate-for-experimental-hepatitis-c-drug-tops-95-percent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)