Talk:Viral disease

This  level-5 vital article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Viruses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Viral disease. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

An interesting article; thanks. I'll be 'watching' and assisting as I am able. I'm not a doctor, nor in the medical profession (except in homeopathics I know and use.) I know more than ten times what the general pubic knows; but beyond that, I know friends and associates that know ten times more than I do. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headline: Dr Manny: Why are there deadly viruses in the world?

• http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/07/30/dr-manny-why-are-there-deadly-viruses-in-world/?intcmp=obnetwork

QUOTE: " There are thousands upon thousands of unique viruses documented around the world, with new ones being discovered all the time. But they somehow continue to come as a surprise to most people because it wasn’t until the 20th century that we actually started to understand these viruses and come up with solutions to control them." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.[reply]

Dr Manny gives five examples of current high interest:

• Ebola: A deadly outbreak of the virus in West Africa that has killed over 600 people
• Anthrax: Although not a virus, symptoms can take anywhere from one day to …
• Marburg virus: First identified during outbreaks in Marburg and Frankfurt, Germany in 1967
• Hantavirus: People become infected with hantavirus … infected rodents
• HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) affects 35 million people worldwide

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use strikethrough when editing past comments. Refer to WP:TALK. Thank you! RiesHunter (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More can be said to be more descriptive than, "These are tables, ...". The lede can be improved to describe "Viruses" and "Viral disease" -- IMHO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of HHV-6 in the article. Can anyone fix this? Glaciare (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't enough citations in the table and some other areas. In particular some of the coronavirus sections. Thanks Australiaman9999 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page (Viral Disease) is an example of a major concern I have for many Wikipedia pages. The material is virtually ALL "professional lingo" (language that only those inducted into the specialized field can follow). Since I wrote academic articles, I saw this quite a bit, and it frequently poses an artificial and largely unnecessary barrier to learning information and the exchange of ideas. The purpose of an encyclopedia, in my opinion, should be to provide ACCESS to all topics presented without having to click through twenty links to understand the given article. Supplemental reading should present additional information, of course, but each article should stand on its own as accessible to the vast majority of readers. Specific examples: enveloped, non-enveloped, icosahedral capsids, etc. Thank you for your consideration.

Addendum: after a bit more exploring, I found this page: What Wikipedia is Not. I would argue that this article is in violation of #6, 7, and 8. (Wikipedia should not be a textbook, scientific journal, or use overly academic language.)

Mithalwulf (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC); updated Mithalwulf (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]