Talk:Human Metapneumovirus

Overall Comments:

Interesting virus you’ve found here! How strange is it that it essentially infects everyone, and yet we only learned about it a few years ago?
Anyway, my major comment is that the introduction section needs to be reorganized. I’ve made some comments about it below, but I would recommend dividing it up into several different sections. I would definitely have a section about virion structure and replication, a section about why it took so long to identify, maybe a section about its evolution and phylogenetic stuff, and any others that you think would fit. My only other comment would be to improve your figures. You should reference them as figures 1, 2, etc. You should also do a more detailed explanation of each figure, including a summary of the methods for figure 3. Finally, make sure you make hyperlinks to the papers in the figure legends when you reference their figures.

Comments by Section:

Introduction
-Label your figures 1, 2, 3, etc.
-With respect to figure 1, it’s hard to tell what we’re seeing. Could you maybe photoshop in an arrow or something to indicate exactly what part of this image is the virion?
-Don’t need to introduce RSV by saying “another cause of respiratory tract…”. Instead, I would recommend introducing it in context of HMPV, and simply jump into the explanation of how HMPV was only recently discovered because it is extremely similar to RSV, etc. That way it doesn’t feel like you’re awkwardly changing the subject in the middle of a paragraph.
-I think that this large “introduction” section could easily be subdivided into several different topics, and that it would really improve the section’s readability. (Right now it’s an intimidating wall of text.) You could have an entire section about its discovery and why it was discovered only recently.
-A phylogenetic “family tree” of all the different metapneumovirus strains (and possibly what they infect) might be an interesting figure to include here. Completely optional, of course.
-You mention the genome type, but what Baltimore classification is this? (Check the figure in our book)
-A simple figure of the genome map would be a good idea.
-Although the virus has been poorly characterized, there are some other basic viral properties that you should hit on, if the information is available. The Baltimore classification is one of these things. But most notably, you should go into more depth about the virion structure other than it has an “envelope”, if that information is available. Have any of the reviews you’ve read included a simple diagram of the virion structure? Is it structurally similar to any other virus? (This is also a great opportunity for a figure.)

Susceptible Groups
-Your first few sentences about children less than five are pretty repetitive, plus the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Symptoms
-You’ve already spent a long time discussing how it’s similarity to RSV probably kept it from being identified. You don’t really need to repeat that here.
-How can they know that everyone has been exposed to it? Also, when they say “geographic location”, do they mean within developed countries? Or all over the world?
-Refer to the figure as “Figure 2” instead of “to the right.” Because the positioning of wiki text and images changes depending on things like screen size, resolution, etc, there is no guarantee that the reader will ever see the figure where you see the figure, so it’s common practice to not reference things directionally on a wiki page.
-Maybe help with interpreting Figure 2? What type of scan is this? I don’t really recognize what you’re telling me I’m seeing.

Vaccine Development
-This section on viral replication feels misplaced, and would probably be better suited for a section on general viral structure and replication
-Explain in detail in the figure legend about specifically what is in parts A through E. This should include some summarized methods.

(Michael Harden)