# Talk:Streptococcus iniae

This review is transcluded from Talk:Streptococcus iniae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! This is the first time I've seen a microbiology article at GAN, so I jumped at the chance to review it. Comments later today or tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, there are no microbiology GAs, and I believe Myxobolus cerebralis is the only FA on a pathogenic organism. Maybe that will change soon? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Dropping some initial comments:
History

subcutaneous should be wlinked or reworded for simplicity
OK.
"It was found to be sensitive to beta-lactam antibiotics" not clear whether it's referring to the bacteria or the dolphin
Fixed.
"In the 1980s, a purported new species of Streptococcus was identified" How about a reference to this publication?
Done and reworded.
might want to mention that the specific epithet is derived from the dolphin name
Seems pretty obvious, but I left it out as the source does not note it explicitly.
Identification

wlink anaerobic
Done.
this section just jumps right into things... how about starting with a general sentence mentioning blood agar plates and the use of hemolysis reactions in general. How is the catalase reaction tested? What is LAP, PYR, CAMP... etc. So that a grade 12 student could get the gist of how a microbiologist identifies the organism without having to do background reading/link clicking.
I'll add some background.
Role in disease

"(one-tenth of which in the United States)" phrase needs fixing
I'll reword it.
"Penicillin has been suggested as the drug of choice for the treatment of S. iniae infection in mammals, including humans." In what other mammals has this infection been found?
Other than dolphins?
There's a fair body of literature about the subject; how do you feel about expanding the article a bit? I don't have anything specific in mind yet, but if you're interested, I could look through the databases and see what might be worth adding. Also, my father-in-law is a retired Ichthyologist who worked with the Canadian government, and has extensive experience with fish diseases... I'll have him read the article as well and see what suggestions he might have. Sasata (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent, thank you so much. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: It seems to me like the inclusion or mention of several recent papers might have beneficial effect on the article. For example, the article states "Vaccination against S. iniae has been attempted with limited success.", but just in the last two years since that cited article, there's been quite a bit more research on developing vaccines. Anyway, check out these articles: PMID 19961667, PMID 19809256, PMID 19762441, PMID 19278524, PMID 19120642, PMID 19019569, PMID 18840139, PMID 18806000, PMID 18665241, PMID 18430254, PMID 18353022, PMID 18406547 Sasata (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about being so pokey with this review, but I take the "no time limit" adage seriously :) I found an interesting paper here. Maybe there's some info about the history that could be used in the article? eg.

first cases in 1991 and 1994, but causative agent undetermined. Newspapers reporting about "mad fish disease" (a newspaper archive search might turn up something useful)
more recent stats about economic losses, and losses specifically to US Tilapia industry
changes to federal regulation & enhanced provincial inspection programs as a result
Awesome. Will see what I can glean from this and the ones above. No worries—I've barely been around anyway :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we get this GA review moving? Seems to just be sitting here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Fvasconcellos' contributions, it seems he is very busy at the moment. You might want to send him an email. JFW | T@lk 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The article only really needs to be updated with some recent literature. I'll work on it myself this weekend, and get this GAN out of the queue. Sasata (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So sorry for neglecting this for so long—I've been literally unable to devote any time to WP. I hope to be back next week. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It's alright. If you're that busy though, I would recommend withdrawing it and renomming it when you're back 100% so you don't have to worry about this in the back of your mind. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"opportunistic infections". I am surprised that this is said to occur. Presumably, it is not a normal commensal in humans. Snowman (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it's commensal on some species of fish. from PMID:17418985 "S. iniae also has zoonotic potential, with human infections identified in the USA, Canada, and throughout Asia. In humans, infection is clearly opportunistic with all cases to date associated with direct infection of puncture wounds during preparation of contaminated fish, and generally in elderly or immunocompromised individuals." I've added a citation for this claim. Sasata (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that any puzzle would be avoided, if the article said that human infections occur in weakened individuals. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
As requested at WT:GAN, I'll give a second opinion and review. Here goes:

What is "finfish"? It redirects to fish.
"non-typable  Lancefield group" - I presume this means that is cannot be placed in any of the groups listed under Rebecca Lancefield#Classification, but especially in the lead section I wonder whether such jargon is appropriate. There are some more instances of this.
I think the first paragraph of the "History" section should make clear that the 1976 report described the species S. iniae.
"Decreasing feed to fish populations" - is this grammatically correct?
Is there an established structure for microbial articles? I think the 1st and 2nd; and 3rd and 4th sections could potentially be merged.
Images look good, sources are reliable. It certainly passes GA criteria 2 and 4–6. I think there are a few problems with criterion 1, noted above. As for criterion 3, I believe it passes; there is some more literature (tilapias are better at surviving S. iniae when you feed them vitamin E, for example) that should be included were this an FAC, but it isn't, and the current article provides a reasonable overview of the topic. Ucucha 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes made - thanks for the second opinion. As for established structure, there isn't a lot of examples. Myxobolus cerebralis is similar in subject matter (although it looks about due for a FAR) but has a different layout. I think this article could probably use separate pathology and impact sections, but I'll let someone else worry about that :) Sasata (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes; I think it can be passed as a GA now. Ucucha 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)