Talk:Adeno-associated virus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Hi. I wrote a long paper about targeting Adeno-associated viruses two years ago as my mid-term work. The thing was long, and I included there a profound introduction about AAVs in general, which I thought could be a good material for Wikipedia article. Of course it's a little changed and updated comparing to the original version.

However, I am not a native English-speaker, so the article is definitely filled with misspelling and grammar errors. A correction would be greatly appreciated.

Expansion of the article should be done in whatever manner seems fit. Clinical trials done so far with AAVs, whould be a greatly desired section. The structure of the capsid, its icosahedral symmetry, and the way the capsid subunits interact with each other.

The article is also devoid of drawings, so any drawings would do: photos of virus, schemes of the way it infects the cell, and - which I find particularily needed - a diagram of its genome, and the way the genome is transcribed and later translated. I am able to do those drawing, but it would take me time, and maybe someone could come up with something already.

And also - whatever term in the article you will find not understandable, please pipelink it, so that it will be accessible with a click to others who may also not understand it. cheers :) Meiquer 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Too many references? 2 references 3 Diagram? 4 copy-edit complete

[edit] Too many references?

Good job getting this started, you obviously put a lot of work into it.

This article goes into a lot of depth, so has a lot of references... I went through and standardized the references to a common format (Harvard, since most were close to Harvard already) and provided the full citations from PubMed. In addition to greatly increasing the size of the article with the full citations (sorry about that), now that all of the references show up in the reference list that list is longer than the article.

It might be possible to trim the references down to a more managable size, there are several places where there are multiple refs for a single sentence. Alternatively those single sentences may need to be expanded so they cover the info in a little more depth. If this gets long enough we could split the article into multiple sub-articles re: gene therapy and AAVs. Any thoughts?

RainbowCrane | Talk 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

Well, it's nice that the article in Wikipedia now more resembles an ordinary article in a journal, but my question is: what is the point of that? Why to make in the text a link to the bottom of the page, from where the link goes to Pubmed anyway. Wasn't it simplier when the links went to Pubmed directly from the article? That's the way I see it. Actually the first version of the article I was preparing was like this now (text -> references -> Pubmed), but I thouhgt, why bother the middle link?

that was by me, Meiquer 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP citations are supposed to be complete, since it may be distributed in offline or even print versions (see WP:Cite). As someone else pointed out when I listed this article on the review page for some feedback, the references in the article might work better using Cite.php than Harvard, since footnotes break the flow less than Harvard citations. If you like that idea I'm willing to convert to Cite.php style. Though people could get the citation info by going to pubmed, at the very least the full citation info for all of the references should be in a References section, rather than forcing the reader to follow links to external sources to find reference info. One of the more useful aspects of an encyclopedia article is giving a reader an initial bibliography for further research. Thanks again for you work. RainbowCrane | Talk 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are of course right, I didnt think of possibility of using Wiki offline. As for the style of the citations - I don't think it's my decision whatsoever. I think the best style is the one that fits most of the Wiki-readers. I think it should follow the common preference. But big thanks for doing that. I'm happy "my" article is being worked on :). Meiquer 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram?

Could anyone possibly elaborate a little on what they'd like this diagram to show? I'm sorry, my molecular biology isn't too good -- do you want the DNA structure to be shown? The virus morphology?

Cheers, Xanthine 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copy-edit complete

I have copy-edited the article, although there wasn't much to do. It is very technical which makes some of the sentences long and unwieldly, but that can't really be helped. As such I have removed the copy-edit tag. By the way, there are way too many references! An encyclopaedic article does not need as many references as an essay. If something is generally accepted as fact in a specific field it does not need to have a reference, and you don't need to reference every single point of the article. You should consider which of the references provide the most appropriate information to someone wanting to know more about the virus and include those in a references section. For information that is not covered by any of your selected references, you can then include a specific reference for that point. JenLouise 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)