Wikipedia:Peer review/Virus/archive1

Virus

I am submitting this article for Peer Review as I think it has what it takes to be a featured article. I, and other contributors, would be very grateful for any critique you could offer which could improve the article and help it on its way. Our thanks in advance -- Serephine ♠ talk - 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 1 (fixed)

~~It has unnecessary date links.~~ This can be fixed quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Bobblewik, the dates have been fixed ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. bobblewik 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 2 (fixed)

It looks pretty decent overall. Unfortunately I didn't have time for a complete review, but here's a few comments:

~~When the text says, "In all four, a capsid of either helical, icosahedral, or a combination of both is present", this is presumably refering to a shape. So can that be clarified in the sentence?~~
~~First it says that a capsid can be spherical or helical, then it says a capsid can be helical or icosahedral. Which is it?~~
~~"unusual morphological structure" seems redundantly redundant to me. Wouldn't unusual morphology suffice? Also could morphological be linked?~~
~~In some cases the text uses terminology such as glycoprotein and pleiomorphic that may be unfamiliar to the casual reader. It would be good if these were either defined or linked.~~

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input RJH, they've all been fixed ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 3 (in progress)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

~~See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.~~
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
~~Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.~~
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.

Does anyone find these a problem? Personally I find footnotes to be an ugly mess -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, footnotes are required by WP:WIAFA (nowadays, you won't be able to get an article past WP:FAC without a minimum of ~one footnote per section). And thanks about the taxobox tip. Andy _t AndyZ 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers Andy, I'll get around to footnoting the article soon ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

A work in progress, I removed a pile earlier -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.

Got me on that one, call it a work in progress or overzealous use of H3 tags! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

I'm pretty sure I've got them all, if anyone finds any please note it here -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy _t 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the pleasure is all mine ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion 4 (fixed)

~~Another Wikipedia style is to use sentence case i.e. 'Genetic Material' should be 'Genetic material'. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Fixed, thanks again! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]