|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Measles article.|
|Measles has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Measles was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|To-do list for Measles:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Measles.
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
- 1 Infectivity period
- 2 Recent Outbreaks
- 3 "There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria."
- 4 Outdated graphs
- 5 Merging sections
- 6 Mortality
- 7 Citations
- 8 Fatality rate confused with Mortality rate
- 9 Move complications
- 10 105
- 11 Disease that can be eliminated
- 12 Infection cases
- 13 Copyright problem removed
- 14 Disneyland
- 15 "Ultra-Orthodox"
- 16 Old graph showing Measles cases 1944-2007 better than none?
- 17 Legal action on measles virus denial.
Can we discuss please the infectivity period? The article says:
"and infectivity lasts from two to four days prior, until two to five days following the onset of the rash (i.e. four to nine days infectivity in total) "
while the source that was cited says:
"The infection has an average incubation period of 10-12 days (range 7-18 days) and infectivity lasts from 4 days before the rash of measles appears until 4 days after it disappears."
which I think is quite different to what the article days. The source "" adds nothing new to this in my view.
I find all kinds of differing answers on this in the net and I think it would be great to get a definitive answer.
As I am not knowledgeable in this area myself, it would be great if experts could have a look.
- with no one having answered I took the liberty to include both beliefs in the article. Happy to discuss Jaeljojo (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Sydney the capital of Australia? "In November 2011, an outbreak was reported in Sydney, the capital city of Australia with at least 12 reported cases."? I'm pretty sure it's Canberra  18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the New Zealand herald, online Sunday 21 April 2013, "Suspected measles death in UK sparks wave of vaccinations". More at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10878815 Kdarwish1 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I know this section is already flagged for clean-up, but I wanted to point out that the following statement is false/misleading: "Vaccination is not mandatory in Europe, in contrast to the United States and many Latin American countries, where children must be vaccinated before they enter school" (end of paragraph 9). Although most parents in the U.S. do immunize their children,
it is not actually a law. K.Grey (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The 'Recent Outbreaks' section suffers from major WP:RECENTism. The disease plagued humanity for at least thousands of years, but the largest part of the article is about minor outbreaks after the period where it was any threat at at. This section is basically a trivia section, and I suspect only really exists at its size because this information is easily accessible on the internet without any real work. The sections on its history and how it came to be virtually eradicated needs to be greatly expandsed. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
"There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria."
- I've provided a couple of examples for potential improvement in new sections on this talk page. Additionally, a lot of the recent outbreaks listed have not had followups that discuss the outbreaks as if they have already passed.
- In August 2011, an outbreak in New Zealand has seen 94 confirmed cases in Auckland alone. - This right here is an example of what I am talking about. "Has seen" implies the outbreak as still currently occurring, and the article sourced comes from the time period of the outbreak, so more recent sources are needed for some of these.
- It also might not be needed (or notable) to include smaller outbreaks of <50 or <100 people as these small outbreaks occur in even the most developed countries every now and then. Or at least these smaller outbreaks should be merged into paragraphs. ComfyKem (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There are four epidemiological graphs on the Measles page: two showing measles incidence before and after vaccine introduction, one showing vaccine uptake in every country and another showing the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for every country. All of these seem to be outdated by a few years, but the two that necessitate newer statistics are the vaccine uptake graph and the disability-adjusted life year graph. The DALY graph is showing 2002 stats and the vac rate graph is showing 2007 stats, yet the year we are in appears to be 2013(and the Measles Initiative has done a lot of work in recent years), and as such, more up-to-date graphs are needed. I believe the WHO provides these stats, so could someone update them or explain how to? ComfyKem (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Should the evolution and genotype sections be merged into the cause section as subsections? Cause is discussing the virus, yet the article as a whole is centered around the disease. Diseases don't evolve or have genotypes, but viruses do. ComfyKem (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- These sections IMHO should be moved to a new article on the Measles virus rather than being included in this article. The split between the virology of a disease and the clinical features of a disease is fairly standard on WP at this point. This arrangement is a lot easier to work with.DrMicro (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It says, under "Epidemiology", that "In sub-Saharan Africa, mortality is 10%." This is far excessive. Since there are 3-2 × 107 cases worldwide per year, and only 139,000 are fatal, and a very large portion (perhaps 40%) in sub-Saharan Africa, there is no way mortality can be anywhere near 10%. The reports I've read of outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa suggest a mortality of more like 1%, sometimes less.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I've reworded it to what the source actually states. ComfyKem (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I recently saw two sections where it said, "This section does not cite any references or sources." However, I no longer see this, or any other notice indicating lack of proper citations. Did these sections get removed, or were citations added?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. The two sections in question that had no references were titled Diagnosis and Genotypes. I have since provided sources for the diagnosis section, and the genotype section has been moved to the article Measles virus. ComfyKem (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Fatality rate confused with Mortality rate
It states the fatality rate as x in 1000, this is the mortality rate. Because the article confuses these two types of rates the figures given need reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree, but the current parts of Prognosis would have to be rewritten so as not to provide repetitive information. The "risk factors for complications" in the Cause section may need to be moved as well. ComfyKem (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Under “Prognosis”, it says, “The vast majority of patients survive measles, though in some cases complications may occur, which may include bronchitis, and – in about 1 in 100,000 cases – panencephalitis, which is usually fatal.” (Citation deleted.) I wrote the 100,000 as 105, but it was reverted. Do you think the 105 form should be restored? I prefer 105 because it is more concise; I don't believe in using 6 or 7 characters to write what can be written in 3.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- In a non technical page like this the exponential notation is not productive. Many people are not comfortable with the notation and it may even be mistaken for a reference if it is in-line resulting in a person reading it as 10 instead of 100000 Using thousands commas is also not ideal because there is no way to determine except from context if they are an indication of 0.001 accuracy assumption instead of hinting at 100'000. I would suggest using 100000 as this is what it is and is universally understood by a reader from any country or educational background. Use in a formula or table in an engineering or scientific page would make sense.
Disease that can be eliminated
Measles is a disease that can be eliminated and even eradicated. There are a few criteria that it fulfils to be entitled for elimination. It does not have any reservoir. There are a few other reasons. I think the list needs to be incorporated into this article. DiptanshuTalk 08:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a couple more years of US infection rates out from the CDC, but they are not terribly interesting (140, 71, 63, 220, 55, 187 for 2008-2013, respectively; this is roughly in line with the late nineties / early noughties). The current year has over 400 so far, though. I am thinking to wait until the 2014 rates are official before updating the relevant image, but I could do a provisional chart if people are interested. Relatedly, I am planning to do a version without text to facilitate use on other projects. Is there anything else people would like to see in this image? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20090101183418/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=422. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to see statistics on the new outbreak going on that apparently started in Disneyland, especially the rate of infection among the vaccinated and un-vaccinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not really relevant to the article. & the entire recent outbreaks section reads like a newspaper, so it has to be rewritten. ComfyKem (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
In the paragraph titled "Recent outbreaks", it begins by identifying a sect of Judaism as "Ultra-Orthodox" I am not Jewish myself, but "Ultra" seems like an offensive prefix to call any religious group. The proper name for this group is Haredi Judaism Intentionally offensive prefixes do not belong on Wikipedia per WP:GFFENSE 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- The word "ultra-orthodox" is used in reliable sources including scientific publications. I doubt that it is offensive. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Old graph showing Measles cases 1944-2007 better than none?
Legal action on measles virus denial.
BBC reports: German court orders measles sceptic biologist to pay 100,000 euros on a 2011 bet on proving that ilness is caused by a virus, not a "psychosomatic" condition:
Maybe this news piece could be worked into the "measles" article? The quite large amount of court-imposed fine suggests to merit attention even outside Germany and Europe. 2A01:368:E013:2F:49C:126D:CA13:5B7F (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)