Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore classification

(

)

... that for almost fifty years the Baltimore classification, which classifies viruses by how they transfer genetic information, was used alongside standard evolutionary taxonomy?

ALT1: ... that some viruses can be catalogued into two groups of the Baltimore classification? Source: See "Multi-group viruses" section.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shaktikanta Das
Comment: One longer hook which attempts to communicate more information, and one shorter hook which is simpler and (to my mind) less interesting.

Improved to Good Article status by Velayinosu (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 81 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC).

The review of the main source by Esculenta, the GA reviewer, appears to be sufficiently thorough to establish that the article does not suffer from any close paraphrasing issues; Earwig's Copyvio Detector certainly does not detect any. AirshipJungleman29 nominated the article shortly after it was promoted to GA. Both hooks are a bit problematic for me. The main hook is a bit wordy (classification classifies) and it implies that the Baltimore classification is no longer used alongside standard evolutionary taxonomy, a claim which I do not see in the article. The lack of direct quotes from the sources does not help. ALT1 is problematic because the lead paragraph mentions seven groups, not two; and even if these seven groups form two supergroups, the prominent reference to seven groups would almost certainly raise eyebrows. I also suspect that the most interesting hook could be produced from Baltimore_classification#Evolutionary_origins_and_relations. Surtsicna (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)