Talk:Respiratory syncytial virus

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: consensus to move with unanimous support. Thanks, and happy editing!   ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Human orthopneumovirus →  – The WP:COMMONNAME as given by WP:MEDRS. This should be a case of WP:IAR with regard to the ICTV name because readers of all levels will be looking for the RSV name. Furthermore,  states: . Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  just waiting for destination article to be deleted to make way for move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

text: . ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 September 2020 

message: Peer Review from last week
'''
General Info
I am reviewing ACMetro’s work.
Link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_syncytial_virus
Lead Section: Good
-         The first sentence states the article topic concisely and accurately.
-         All the information included is also present in the body.
-         Although it summarizes most major points, there are some important aspects of the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment that should also be included in this section.
Content/Organization: Excellent
-         Very good work on the organization of the page. There are very clear and appropriate headings and subheadings that make it easier to read. I can tell you put a lot of work into this.
-         The content you added enhances the quality of the article!
-         I did not notice any grammatical/spelling errors.
-         Readability is appropriate for the lay audience.
-         Content is complete and your links are appropriate.
Tone and Balance: Excellent
-         Tone in your writing is neutral and appropriately focuses on stating the information in an unbiased manner.
Sources and References: Excellent
-         It is awesome to see that you added a large number of references that are mainly secondary and tertiary resources!
-         Your references are also mainly all up to date. I noticed some older papers from the 1950s, but it seems those references are associated with statements made in the History section (which is appropriate).
-         The few links that I checked worked effectively.
Images and Media: Excellent
-         Under the Cause section I appreciate your use of images to describe the virology. It allows for better visualization of the structure and life cycle of the virus.
-         Well done on the captions.
Overall Impressions: Excellent
Overall, your additions to this article are very apparent and definitely has improved the overall quality of this article. The organization, completeness, and readability really stand out to me. I appreciate your use of images and media to add context to the text. I am looking forward to seeing how you will add to the lead section to improve its completeness. Anicm1 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiMed Peer Review 

message: From what I can see, RSV is not generally considered an airborne virus but one transmitted via surfaces (e.g. PMID:11052396). Has thinking changed on this more recently than this 2000 source? Bon courage (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this CDC source, updated very recently, focuses on droplets and surfaces. Crossroads -talk- 18:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airborne? 

message: The image of RSV is uninformative.
This one is much better:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/experimental-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccine-prompts-antibody-surge
Since it's government, it might be non-copyright. 71.213.63.77 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is already in the article, so I just moved it up to the infobox instead. If anyone contests the edit, they can discuss it here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image