Talk:Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Resource Exchange
WikiProject icon If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. WikiProject icon
 

This page needs to be expanded SUBSTANTIALLY. I think the MMWR is a resource of under-realized value in not only the US but also the rest of the world. Is anyone willing to help me really get this article in shape? JeffreyN 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A substantial addition - but unhappily inducing a lack of balance.[edit]

I've added the 2004 report on the levels of lead in children in Washington DC. Since it was playing a role in a larger story, and even at the end was severly criticised by a congress committee, it clearly ought to be mentioned.

I also thought that I should add a short section about the controversy; emphasising the MMWR report, but otherwise presenting condensed material from our article Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water, and referring to that article for further information. However, I found it hard to be as short as I had intended. IMHO, in order to make a reasonable presentation, we should present the background, he report, the criticism, and the response; and even if I tried to make each of these short, in total, this now encompasses rougly half the article (and rather more than less).

Now, I think that this is "unfair". Of course, Wikipedia does not set out to be "fair" to its editors or readers...; but we do try to make some reasonably balance in what we present. In this case, we have an important source of information about various health issues. Since I think that that is what it is, I think that the article mainly should focus these aspects.

In other words, the positive impact now get a too small proportion of the reader's attention, compared to the lead report controversy. On the other hand, I find it hard to make the section about that controversy much shorter, with a maintained reasonable content; but other editors might be more successful.

Barring that, the most reasonable solution would be to extend the rest of the article. E.g., there are several "notable articles" mentioned. If someone knows more about these, there could be short sections added for each one of them. Likewise, it would be interesting to know what kind of general reception the MMWR has in the US; and to what extent it also influences health issue awareness abroad.

To sum up, I agree completely with what JeffreyN wrote, four years ago. JoergenB (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Notable Articles" in Prose[edit]

I think "Notable Articles" section of this article should be in prose. It's just a list of articles that doesn't explain why these articles are notable achievements, which is what this section should do. - 76.121.211.59 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)