Talk:Coxsackie A virus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SMohebbi95, R.Li8, Jseibel93, Cpham3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Initial comment

Hey 62.253.64.xxx - I've been following your tracks and I wanted to say "nice work!" - User:MMGB — Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 9 April 2002 (UTC)

A note

The section titled "Diseases" is mostly a direct pull from http://therfcc.org/coxsackie-virus-111850.html -- looks like plagiarism, needs to be paraphrased or rewritten.

The URL above appears to direct to a malware site. 198.144.208.148 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

page does not exist

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coxsackie A virus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Coxsackie is related to Hoof and Mouth--they are different, but they're both picornaviruses. Symptoms and transmission are also quite similar. 72.130.181.109 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Perhaps worth noting that Coxsackie A21 is being used by Viralytics (an Australian company) as a potential treatment for cancer, in particular melanoma and head and neck cancers. In their commercial formulation it is known as Cavatak. Viralytics are currently awaiting FDA approval for a Phase 2 trial in melanoma. Reference here: Viralytics website UnNovel (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 12:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Coxsackie A21 is now being used in research at the University of Surrey as a biologic agent against non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Reference here: Viral targeting of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and priming of anti-tumour immunity following intravesical Coxsackievirus A21 [1] 198.144.208.148 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coxsackie A virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512224239/http://www.sarawak.health.gov.my/hfmd.htm to http://www.sarawak.health.gov.my/hfmd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 12 proposed edits

Add more sections to get a full picture of the virus, for example: notable incidences (outbreaks), in pregnancy, replication cycle, genotypes, structure, genetics, evolution, emergency warning signs, signs and symptoms, prevention, and duration and expand on the current treatment section. SMohebbi95 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

SMohebbi95, Thanks for your help! Please ensure that all additions are supported by citations that comply with our guidelines for medical content. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Group 11 Peer Editing

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The group members added substantial edits and multiple sections. Previously, the article had only the background section, and the group expanded on the disease in terms of signs and symptoms, virus specifics, prognosis, and treatment details. Their overall goals were to add specific sections which they outlined and then successfully completed. The transmission section is especially useful, and members did a great job displaying the main modes of transmission. Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. The main area for improvement to make it more neutral would be the section regarding treatment options. It is slightly biased towards certain treatment options (“Very important to keep hydrated”); instead the information should be presented in a way which demonstrates all options with no emphasis on particular ones. Stating that fluids are recommended would probably be a less biased way of presenting the information. A.Kumar, UCSF (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

This group made substantial edits and significantly improved this article. This group was able to provide more information on the disease and expand in terms of signs and symptoms, background information about the virus, how it affects pregnancy, and treatment options available. They also have many credible resources. They have definitely reached their goals for improvement and did an outstanding job improving this article!

Overall the points included in this Wikipedia article can be verified using high quality and credible secondary sources, including sources from the CDC and from reputable scientific journals as well. The sources used as references are freely accessible to the public. However, I did notice that some of your references are doubled up:

• #15, 17, and 18 (Modlin) are actually the exact same source. These should all be under the same reference number
• #11 and 14 (Deeb) are also the same source

You can edit these citations by going to “Cite” → “Re-use” (instead of “Automatic”) on the edit page and select the reference accordingly. D. Doan (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? If not, specify...

The group's edits improve the article significantly. More sections were added (such as signs and symptoms, outbreaks, and pregnancy) to provide a broader picture of this virus. Tables and an image were also included. Citations are plentiful. The edits also encompassed both scientific details of the virus (viral structure & genome, replication cycle) and clinical presentation details.

Article title uses scientific or recognized medical name -Written for general reader with subtitles presented in logical order -Suggestion: “Patients” is used under subtitle “Viral structure and genome”. “Cases” is used under subtitles “Diseases and pregnancy.” Consider changing “cases/patients” to “individuals”

Writing style -Writing style reflects this document as an encyclopedia, which is great! -Suggestion: In the lead section, include a comprehensive summary (1-2 sentences) of the main points in the article by following the order of the subtitles -Complex terms are hyperlinked, which is great

Content Sections -Subtitles are very comprehensive -Suggestion: Move ‘Viral structure and genome” and “Replication cycle” subtitles either to very end or very beginning since these are more scientific. Subtitles like “Signs and Symptoms”, “Prevention”, “Treatment” etc can be grouped together since these are more clinical -Suggestion: Make “Diagnosis” its own subtitle

Citing Medical Sources -Looks great, lots of citations

Images -Electronic microscope image is appropriate. Virus classification table and tree with s/sx related to viruses also looks great! A.Chhen01 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

Overall, there is little plagiarism in the article. There were a few sentences that seemed to be too similar to the source. “Since 2008, the Coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6) strain has been linked to hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) outbreaks worldwide.” vs “CVA6 (coxsackievirus A6) has been linked to several worldwide outbreaks since 2008”. “Infection of the CVA16 has been linked with third trimester massive perivillous fibrin deposition leading to intrauterine fetal demise and spontaneous abortions.” vs “Infection with coxsackievirus A16 has been associated with third trimester massive perivillous fibrin deposition triggering intrauterine fetal demise, as well as first trimester spontaneous abortions.”

Part 1: Yes, the group has substantially improved the article by adding several sections and multiple references. It also seems like they have met their goals of what they were going to add to the article.

M.DuranUCSF (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)