Talk:Chlorovirus

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. Student editor(s): Sanders.ciara, Karahavet, Gabeval., Mary Moll. Peer reviewers: Katouatou, Malnasleh, ParT123, Saweradhaliwal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Katherine's peer review

Overall comments: - Very concise, very little fluff which is nice for someone who is visiting the page to quickly find key information - A lot of the article is very technical, and even as a science student, I didn't understand many of the terms and measurements. I'll provide examples of this below. - Good use of citations throughout the article - In some sections, chlorovirus is capitalized and in others, it isn't. Fix for consistency in final draft (I'm sure you guys were on this but just to make sure)

Intro: - Good key information - Could use a bit of information about where it is located, either globally or in what part of the water column or in which type of water

Taxonomy: - Reiterate that chlorovirus is a family of viruses

Structure: - Unsure what T=169 symmetry is so either explain or link to a page that does - You could use sub headings to clearly separate the genomic structure section from the morphological structure section. - Move this part from the bottom paragraph which is about morphological structure, to the top paragraph about genomic structure: 'The dsDNA is non-sequenced and about 331 kb and is closed with a hairpin structure terminus. Generally, the DNA is only found with a single copy. PBCV-1 has 148 viral proteins and a minimum of one host encoded protein. This type has 416 protein encoding genes.[11]'

Hosts: - Either explain what a titer and a plaque-forming unit is or link to a page that does - Concise and nice

Life cycle: - Very, very well written and easy to follow - Could also use further subtitles, such as "infection of the host" and "DNA replication" and "Virus construction and lysis" - You might need more citations within your second paragraph, but I could be wrong - You need citations in your third paragraph

Effects of infection: - Very interesting to have discussed effects on other species - Would like to see more about what happens to the algae. I understand that they essentially just die, but how fast can this virus wipe out an algal bloom? I understand that the lysis releases nutrients to the water, but what does this mean for the ecosystem? Is the water in which they live typically oligotrophic or nutrient rich anyways?

Ecology - This is a super important section and is what was missing missing from my knowledge as I read the rest (above) of the article! I would move this to the top so that readers can read it first and have a better idea of what this virus is about before reading the specifics. I would suggest putting it as the first topic. - Very well written

Evolution - For some reason I didn't know until now that the chlorovirus was an entire family. Maybe make that more clear earlier in the article - Good use of paragraphs, very well written as well! A joy to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katouatou (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Parly's Peer Review

Introduction

• Add history (ie who discovered, when it was discovered…)
• Where they exist (location)
• Living conditions

Taxonomy

• Overly simplified
• Find a phylogenetic tree and talk about related speices (ie sister groups)

Structure

• Easy to understand
• A labelled image will help visualize

Life Cycle

• Consider moving this section after "Host" section
• Add life cycle diagram

Host

• Include human

Effects of infection

• Terminology is very confusing
• How does virus infect humans, prevention & treatments
• Any notable incidents: major outbreaks?

Ecology

• Endosymbiotic relationships details (what they gain, what they provide)
• Chlorella variabilis NC64A and Chlorella variabilis Syngen viruses data is confusing, adding diagram of peaking times might help

Evolution

• Discuss more than just genetic similarities, consider morphology
• Relationships with different viruses (similarities, differences) or with other organisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParT123 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Mahmoud's Peer Review

Intro A bit short, you could add historical information such as discovery date, or by whom, or even information about the origin of the name in order to beef it up a little bit.

Taxonomy Very short and simplified, I would suggest adding more information about the different species existing in the genus, or different genera in the family. Alternatively you could just place this information in with the evolution section and bring that to the top. I.e. just make it a taxonomy/evolution section and have it go first. Also you should be careful with the use of the word genus in this sentence because when discussing viruses genus refers to Chlorovirus genus in this case and not the genome of the virus. It is also repetitive to say it is a class 1 dsDNA virus with a double stranded DNA genome.

Structure Good information however a little bit hard to read at times due to small grammatical errors, could use a read over to edit. Maybe also define terms such as type species in some way so that people without a background can be familiar with what you're saying.

Life cycle Well written and not too hard to understand. However due to the large volume of information and the gaps in our knowledge about this lifecycle more references in this section would be a good idea.

Effects of Infection Towards the end of the section there seems to be certain conclusions about what is causing the effects of the infection which may not be appropriate for the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia.

Ecology A diagram of the peaking times of the two viruses mentioned in this section would go along way to help with the understanding. You also mention repeatedly the specificity of these viruses to species and even strain, so you can discuss some of those hosts in this section and their role in the environment. You mention this a little with the toxic algal blooms so maybe just expand on it with more specific information.

Evolution This was a well done section, however its placement in the article i think would be better served earlier on, or maybe even as i mentioned earlier just combined with the taxonomy section.

Malnasleh (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sawera's Peer Review

Lead

• Could include information about the origins of discovery and state key facts from the remainder of the article.
• Needs proofreading to improve readability. This is particularly noticeable for the lead, but applies to the article in general.

Taxonomy

• Poor coverage in this section. Expand or merge with another section (perhaps evolution).

Structure

• Table summary of key structural features is very effective. Consider including genome length in the table.
• PBCV-1 description is quite descriptive and quite well written. In the Lifecycle section it was stated that this is a prototype of Chlorovirus. It may be more appropriate to include that information in the Structure section, since it appears first. Readers would then understand why PBCV-1 was highlighted over other species.

Hosts

• I think the main point of this section is to point out the uncertainty of Chlorovirus infection of zoochlorellae in indigenous waters. I'm also assuming the organisms listed as being in association with zoochlorellae are those that zoochlorellae likely cannot grow without. If this is the case, the relationship between those two points could be made clearer by writing "Zoochlorellae are associated with...invertebrtes and protozoans" and "The viruses cannot infect zoochlorellae…grow free of their hosts in indigenous waters." at the end of the paragraph. Then include another concluding sentence explicitly stating the connection you are trying to convey.

Life cycle

• Useful image and impressive level of detail and organization.
• Second paragraph you say "studies predict" and "thought to". Is this such a common prediction that it can be considered fact? If not, perhaps you should explicitly reference sources that argue these points or remove these statements from our article entirely.

Effects of Infection

• Could expand on Chlorovirus use in algal bloom control.
• Maybe merge the short paragraph about effect on humans into the second paragraph? It seems a bit abrupt and out of place.

Ecology and Evolution

• Impressive level of detail once more.
• However, these sections are beginning to sound more like essays. From my understanding, the syntax of a Wikipedia article should be brief, without typical introduction-evidence-conclusion formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saweradhaliwal (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)