This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In the examples of what is considered to be plagiarism and not, the use of the word "victim" was I think a more honest rewording of the referenced text than switching the sentence structure around. It doesn't matter so much to me, but it can leave a person vulnerable here.... -- carol (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a plagiarism correction, you just had some of the biology wrong, such as the species name both in the taxobox and in the article--when ICTVdB gives these names, they are the used name of the virus, not that name with the "virus" changed to its viral genus as you did--see the example in the edit history with TMV--and it's always the full name, you can't omit a single word as you did in the taxobox, with "vein" instead of "vein clearing." In general, in technical articles, more specific is better, hence its only victims are plants. Also, you pulled the list of host plants and called it the affected species, the affected species is a much broader assortment of plants, and it's not always the case that hosts are susceptible to the virus, so they can't be called the "affected species," and it's important to clarify the native hosts of a virus. --Blechnic (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the edit and I completely understand that the technical parts are now much more accurate. It is also the same kind of non-original authoring technique that I used that caused the claim that I had plagiarized though. -- carol (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)