Talk:Bat virome/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hello @Enwebb: - I am glad you are explaining this important and topical subject. As I know almost nothing about it yet I am afraid I am going to be taking up your time with lots of naive questions. And if any of my suggestions do not make sense scientifically fell free to reject them but please explain why in layman's terms.

Chidgk1 thank you so much for taking on this review! Enwebb (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• • Question: Does the word "assemblage" have a special meaning or could it be replaced by "group" or "set"? Would it make sense for the first sentence to be simplified to "The bat virome is the group of viruses which infect bats."?
    • Changed to "group". Keeping "associated with" rather than "infect" because "infect" denotes that it causes disease, and this is not an article about viruses that cause disease in bats. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah I see. But in Asymptomatic carrier "infected" is used. Alternatively what do you think about shortening "associated with" to "hosted by"?
  • Q: Could there be a clause in the lead and/or "viral diversity" section explaining STING in layman's terms if it is important enough?
  • Q: The last sentence in the lead could perhaps be clarified as the word "conversely" confuses the meaning a bit for me. But before we figure out whether it can be improved can I ask you what is the most diverse order of mammals?
    • The most diverse mammal order is the rodents :) In the section "Bats compared to other viral reservoirs", I talk about two recent reviews. One review found that bats do have more zoonotic viruses than most mammal groups, though not significantly more than rodents and primates (rodents, bats, and primates were not significantly different from each other). In contrast, a second review found that bats do not have more zoonotic viruses than any other group relative to how diverse they are. So the two reviews are offering different answers to the question, "Are bats special as zoonotic viral reservoirs"? The first review is essentially saying, yes, they're special, but not more so than rodents and primates, and the second review says no, bats aren't special at all. Enwebb (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah I see thanks. Perhaps a lot of research was done between 2015 and 2020, so should we consider the 2015 review to be superseded by the 2020 review do you think? After answering that question would you like to try improving that sentence first or shall I have a shot at it? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Q: If we simplified "Number of viral sequences" to "Number of kinds of virus" or ""Number of species of virus" would that still be correct?
    • "Species" would be incorrect, as it is not interchangeable with sequence. "Viral sequence" is the language used by the source. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Q: Would it not be the fact that they go into torpor or hibernate that make them better hosts, rather than the ability to do so or is there something about the ability even if they don't?
  • Q: Is rabies the only lyssavirus confirmed to kill them? Maybe tweak sentence to clarify.
    • No, at least one other lyssavirus can be fatal to bats (Lagos bat virus). Enwebb (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Q: Would it be useful to also have a % in the virus family table?
    • added. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Q: Do you think it would be better to have one or two more tables? For example the "Hantaviruses" section has a list which could be a table maybe? But I am not sure because in the table in "reoviruses" is it important to know the year identified? And would not some of those be hosted both by bats and humans?
    • I don't really see use of tables applies to the criterion of "well-written". Host just means whether the virus was isolated from a human or a bat. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Q: Is there a good reason for some subsections being very short or would you like to combine some (perhaps as bullet points)?

   Each subsection is about a family of viruses, with the exception of Lyssavirus, which is a genus. Some subsections are short because not a lot of research has been done about those particular bat viruses. And several virus families are only represented by a few sequences identified from bats. Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

   I went ahead and changed the subsection lyssaviruses to Rhabdoviruses and added more about non-lyssavirus rhabdoviruses. Enwebb (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   Perhaps it would be worth mentioning how research on this fits in to the global virome project.

   Are there any predictions for the future e.g. any idea what proportion of the bat virome remains to be discovered?

   As noroviruses are fairly well known to the public (at least in UK) may be worth mentioning any evidence (or lack of) of zoonosis.

That would require a MEDRS, and I don't see any secondary sources about bat noroviruses (hardly any primary ones, either). Enwebb (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Perhaps add a sentence or 2 expanding on possible bat lifestyle link e.g. colonies or link to more info in bat article https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200709135631.htm

Hello @Enwebb:. I hope you are well. Although the article is mostly OK I think there are a few places where it is still not clear enough for the general reader. I am happy to help with fixing the prose but I don't know enough to be able to do it all by myself. So I am putting this on hold for the moment. If I don't hear from you in the next few days I will ask the Bats Task Force for some expert help. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1, there are pretty much no active editors at Bats Task Force except for me. I can work more on this today. Enwebb (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again @Enwebb:. Thanks for making more improvements. As you can see prose is the only area which still needs fixing and (although the prose in some other sections would have to be further improved if you go for "featured" in future) I think only the lead is the vital last hurdle to get to "good article". Although we don't need to simplify it as far as an article on Simple English Wikipedia it is still too technical for the general reader. This is not just my opinion but would be shared by another reviewer I am sure.

Obviously because you are an expert and have worked so much on this article it is hard for you to read it as if you were a layman coming fresh to the subject. Therefore I have made an attempt at rewriting the lead. Could you have a look at the below to see whether I have got anything wrong or missed anything vital for a lead, and amend as you think necessary:

The bat virome is the set of viruses which infect bats. Although bats host all types of virus, most of those identified as of 2020 are single stranded RNA viruses in the Coronaviridae and Rhabdoviridae families.

Despite the abundance of viruses associated with bats, they rarely become ill from viral infections, and rabies is the only viral illness known to kill bats. Bat virology has been much researched, particularly bat immune response. Bats' immune systems differ from other mammals in their lack of several inflammasomes, which activate the body's inflammatory response, and they produce interferon less. Although they defend against viruses excess inflammation and interferon can damage the body. Preliminary evidence indicates bats are thus more tolerant of infection than other mammals.

Much research has centered on bats as a source of zoonotic viruses, which can cause disease in humans, and whether bats harbor more of these than other orders of mammals. As of 2020, according to most recent studies, on average a species of bat will host no more zoonotic viruses than another species of mammal or bird. But there are more species of bats than any other order of mammal, bar rodents, and bats in total host more kinds of zoonotic viruses than other orders of mammal, except perhaps rodents.

Some bat-borne viruses are considered important emerging viruses. These zoonotic viruses include the rabies virus, Marburg virus, Nipah virus, Hendra virus, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. While transmission of rabies from bats to humans usually occurs via biting, most other zoonotic bat viruses are transmitted by direct contact with infected bat fluids like urine, guano, or saliva, or through contact with an infected, non-bat intermediate host. In some cases the intermediate host is known, for example MERS-CoV was transmitted to humans via camels. But how SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019, was first transmitted to humans is not yet certain, although the Sunda pangolin is one suspect. It has been speculated that bats may have a role in the ecology of the Ebola virus, though this is unconfirmed. There is no firm evidence that butchering or consuming bat meat can lead to viral transmission, though this has been speculated.

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Why has the Baltimore classification been removed from your version of the lead? The schema is the scaffold upon which the entire article is built and organized. I also see changes that are null in that I don't think they necessarily make the article simpler (swapping "group" for "set", for example). I also think that it is more complex to have a note in the first sentence to contradict the association that most readers would have with the word "infect". Would you care if I asked for a second opinion on the lead from another editor? Enwebb (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't want to fail it so I have asked for a second opinion. Hopefully someone can decide which lead is best or merge the best bits from both versions. No need to come back to me unless you have to - I accept whatever they decide and then it can be marked good. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

• The current lead is a great summary of the article. The lead proposed by the reviewer is harder to follow and less comprehensive   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)