Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rotavirus

Rotavirus

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have worked on Rotavirus for four months and now I think it is ready. I have been fortunate to have received a lot of help and guidance from very experienced editors and contributors whose names are on the article's Discussion page. (Although this does imply support and any remaining issues are probably all my own work). The WP:MOS has been followed throughout and the images are my own and have been donated freely to the project. The article is stable and the subject is not controversial. The article is written from a neutral point of view and all facts are supported by in-line citations from reliable sources, of which free-content material has been used when it has been possible. In structuring the article I have been mindful of the great variety Wikipedia readers and have placed the more technical/difficult material at the end.--GrahamColm ^Talk 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Overall the article is pretty good. I did some copy editing, and listed out some stuff to fix below. -Ravedave (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Organization - I think the article structure needs to be reorganized. There are several very short sections which could probably conglomerated. I think that epidemiology could be higher. Look at the AIDS article perhaps?

The article has been restructured many times following the suggestions of other editors and consensus reached. To do this would be going around in circles. Can you be more precise as to what can be conglomerated?--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Dehydration is more common with rotavirus infection than with most bacterial pathogens, and is the most common cause of death related to rotavirus infection,[27] but most children recover from the infection.[28]" - "but most children recover from the infection" seems tacked on, especially since children aren't the topic of the first part. I'm not sure how to refactor it.

Yes, I agree with this and have changed the section accordingly.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Symptomatic reinfections in children are often due to a different rotavirus A serotype." - WHy is the word "children" needed in that sentence? Shouldn't that apply to all ages?

Yes, I agree with this too and I have deleted "children".--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please have Prognosis cover the actual prognosis, currently the section just covers complications. Though this section could maybe be lumped in with another

In the well managed child the prognosis is execellent; I can't think of anything to add.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Is the external link a left over reference?

No, it's an excellent free review article written by an expert.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This virus has been a problem on cruise ships. That should be mentioned.

Thanks for this and I'll address each in turn except the last point: it's Norovirus that cause problems on cruise ships, rotavirus doesn't.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realized my mistake after I hit submit, so I did a quick google and came up with decent number of hits so I left it. Looking at google again it appears that most of the results are just incidental. -Ravedave (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, don't rush to restructure it. I'm not opposed to changing the structure if it helps, but I'd like to know how combining sections will improve the article. Which are candidates for combination? Epidemiology needs to come after transmission at least but other than that, its location in the article seems arbitrary to me so what is to be gained (or lost) by moving it? AIDS is not IMO a good example of article structure to copy and the two viral subjects could not be more different. Rotavirus has taken the WP:MEDMOS suggested sections and the shortness of some of these is to do with the simplicity of the subject (virus/disease) rather than lack of material or (necessarily) incorrect breakdown of sections. Perhaps some specific suggestions could be made before radical change? Colin°^Talk 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate side note brought to attention through this FAC: AIDS needs to come to featured article review for a much needed tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]