Talk:Bacterial phylodynamics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dgomezuf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some comments for improvement

The article is great! just some minor comments:

When it says: With of the advancement of new sequencing technology and the amount of sequencing data available, studying the phylodynamics of bacterial pathogens has never been more possible[6]; I would remove this sentence, or at least change the second part (has never been more possible). Maybe saying something like: The field of bacterial phylodynamics has increased substantially due to the advancement of new sequencing technology and the amount of sequencing data available.

When it says: Sampling bias can also cause problem when looking at a diverse taxological sample.[3]; an s is missing after problem.

In the sentence: Manually editing the indels in the data set will allow a more accurate phylogenetic tree. Maybe this is subjective unless you add some citations.

In the section Phylogeny inference: These include methods include tree building algorithms such as UPGMA, neighbor joining, maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian analysis.[4] I would link all these terms to another wikipedia pages. The same comment for this section: Methods to test the reliability of a tree include bootstrapping, maximum likelihood based tests and posterior probabilities in Bayesian analysis.[4]

When talking about Vibrio cholerae, I would not start a sentence with V. abbreviated.

Dgomezuf (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Emily

Emilysessa (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice page! Some comments and suggestions:

In the evolutionary models section, add some internal links - many of the words in this sentence have their own wikipedia articles and you should link to these. Please also add citations for all the programs you mention that go to their websites or primary literature in which they were published.

The Testing phylogeny section, I would rename this something more like "Assessing phylogenetic support", and add internal links for things like bootstrap, jackknife, etc., that definitely have their own wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what you mean by "maximum likelihood based tests" in this sentence.

It seems like the heading "Phylodynamics" here, below Testing Phylogeny, should actually be called "Phylodynamic Reliability" or something like that? Since Phylodynamics is basically the name of your whole page, it doesn't really make sense to have a subheading with essentially the same name.

In the phylodynamics of cholera section, please add some more content; for example, what are some specific analyses that were done that helped researchers understand the 2010 outbreak? What were the results? In general (and this should probably be another section added as a subheading to the page), were there any outcomes of these analyses that will help control future outbreaks? In other words, what is the real-world purpose of these analyses and how they help understand or prevent outbreaks? Most of your content deals with methods for assessing relationships (the phylogenetics part), but what is the goal?

Title

Hello, Would it be alright if I moved this page to Bacterial phylodynamics per WP:NCCAPS? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)