Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Hepatitis B virus -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	Hepatitis B virus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

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! GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been assigned a High-importance to the Viruses WikiProject. 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. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale Associated task forces: Reproductive medicine task force This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. WikiProject Microbiology (Rated GA-Class) Biology portal Hepatitis B virus is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within microbiology. 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.

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:GrahamColm This in no way implies page "ownership"; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents 1 Previous talk 2 GA review 3 Further Assessment 4 Genome organization figure 5 Effect of alcohol 6 Combination therapy 7 Great new NEJM review article on drug therapy 8 Questions 9 Treatment section: delete paragraph?

Previous talk

Talk Archive to November 2007

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have passed the article, but am looking for a second opinion to confirm that I'm correct (since I'm a new reviewer).Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Opinion - I am also a new reviewer, however there are a few issues I've found, all of which are listed below:

• The lead sounds like it has original research and is entirely unreferenced.
• Some images need re-alignment - especially the one in the replication section.
• It may be worth expanding the vaccination section.

Until then, I am putting this GAN on hold for 7 days. Rudget _talk 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Thanks for your help with the article. I have re-aligned the images as you suggested. There is no original research in the lead, only established facts about the virus. Citations in the lead can be untidy and difficult because this section is written in a very general way.

The Wikipedia:Lead section says:

"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

The vaccination section directs the reader to

Main article: Hepatitis B vaccine

.

--GrahamColm(^Talk ) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the unsourced LEAD issue: many articles (e.g. Sperm whale, Chagas disease, DNA, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Medieval cuisine) have passed the FA status without having a single source in their lead. Given FA criteria is tougher than GA criteria, I don't think an unsourced lead is an issue. GrahamColm has also justified his/her choice using WP:LEAD. Of course, sources are always better than no sources, and this article would certainly be improved by adding them to the lead. Bless sins (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you again. I have added some citations to the lead. Because of the general nature of this section, the citations that I have included are review articles, but they have all been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.GrahamColm^Talk 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. GrahamColm^Talk is male.

Further Assessment

I am willing to to pass the article, as I have read over it once again and the issues set out have been addressed. Well done to those involved. Rudget _talk 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Genome organization figure

There are a few minor problems with the genome figure that I'm hoping can get fixed.

1. (This first one is more of a suggestion.) Rather than numbering the four ORFs, the letter designations used in the text (i.e., ORF P, ORF S, ORF C, and ORF X) may be more appropriate for the figure.

2. The pre-S/ORF 2 box should be divided into "pre-S1," "pre-S2," and "S" to represent the three start codons.

3. ORF 3 (core antigen) should be divided into "pre-C" and "C" since there are actually two in-frame start codons.

4. The 5' end of ORF P (ORF 1) should overlap with the 3' end of ORF C (ORF 3). They are not overlapping in the current version of the figure.

NighthawkJ (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Effect of alcohol

I moved the comment on alcohol from the Treatment section to the Symptoms and Complications section. Seems much more appropriate in the latter Scray (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Combination therapy

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03695.x - ideal treatment (mono- vs combination therapy) still not known. JFW | T@lk 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks J., it looks like a very useful review. I've ordered a full copy. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another review: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03731.x JFW | T@lk 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi JFD, the this one looks like a bad link. GrahamColm^Talk 12:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great new NEJM review article on drug therapy

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/14/1486Wawot1 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Please see here: Talk:Hepatitis#A_few_questions

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Treatment section: delete paragraph?

I was just looking over the treatment section. I see a well-referenced paragraph that describes the dates that various meds were approved by various regulatory bodies in several different countries. This information doesn't seem especially relevant or important. (Need we add when the drug was approved in China/India/New Guinea?)

For readability purposes, I think this paragraph should be deleted. Any thoughts?Wawot1 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done. --Scray (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 3 October 2008, at 01:43.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Hepatitis B virus".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Hepatitis_B_virus

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.