Jump to content

Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 231: Line 231:
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
{{cob}}
{{cob}}

== New recent outbreak should be added? ==

On May 11, 2017, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo notified international public health agencies of a cluster of suspected cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the province of Bas Uélé. The report mentions 9 cases, including two deaths, with a third death reported on May 12. Testing of samples was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) in Kinshasa, with one sample testing positive for Ebola Zaire by RT-PCR. The Ministry has deployed a team to the site to investigate further.

I tried to add this myself but was reverted for some unknown reason.

<ref>2017-may.html</ref> [[Special:Contributions/59.101.244.227|59.101.244.227]] ([[User talk:59.101.244.227|talk]]) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:06, 22 May 2017

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
GA process/review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible flare-up in Liberia

Extended content

This news story suggests that there may be a new flare-up in Liberia. I can't immediately find any other corroborating stories. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3]another... (note and now a second case [4] -not to mention the 7 or 8 cases/fatalities in Guinea- is it just me or is this not the same outbreak continuing (instead of "flare ups"))? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are still best characterized as flare-ups. There's no sense of these individual disease clusters starting to achieve epidemic status. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sitrep

latest WHO situation report still not out(usually every two weeks)[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA (future) nomination

Possible GA ArticleWikipedia:Good_article_nominations(w/ consensus) Type Article review/book/NIH,WHO
Proposed article/book/site jour.
  • Vingolo, Enzo Maria; Messano, Giuseppe Alessio; Fragiotta, Serena; Spadea, Leopoldo; Petti, Stefano (1 January 2015). "Ocular Manifestations of Ebola Virus Disease: An Ophthalmologist's Guide to Prevent Infection and Panic". BioMed Research International. 2015. doi:10.1155/2015/487073. ISSN 2314-6133. Retrieved 1 June 2016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Added
Pending
  • additionally one could add a graph,to the article, which represents the different countries (cases/fatalities) like this (many GA articles use visual/images to further illustrate a point in the article)....

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

discuss

Noted. Will look at it closely. - BroVic (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Art LaPella: Done. Thanks for the heads-up. – BroVic (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I should be done with my copyedit in the next 12 hours or so. I've had a tight schedule and only managed to squeeze some time to get this done. – BroVic (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Art LaPella:Typo fixed. Thanks. – BroVic (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything. Art LaPella (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

West African Ebola virus epidemic GA/
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:West African Ebola virus epidemic/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Lead section: OK.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Layout: OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Words to watch. OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fiction: N/A • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists: OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Checking whether sources are reliable is being slowed down by some of the references not including the publisher. I will not insist on adding the publisher etc to refs, but it is good practice and reduces the risk of losing them to a dead link sometime. I am partly fixing as I find them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few bare urls among the references. If those links get broken, there is no way of knowing what the reference was, and all the material associated becomes unreferenced. This can be a real pain to fix later, so I strongly recommend fixing them now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    will do, (still working)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Done please let me know if I missed any[reply]
    Found a few dead links:
    "Ebola Reduced Lagos Hotel Patronage by 75% in 2014, Articles – THISDAY LIVE". thisdaylive.com. Retrieved 26 April 2015. deleted
    "WHO: New Ebola cases could be up to 10,000 per week in 2 months". The Huffington Post. 14 October 2014. Retrieved 14 October 2014. Done better reference
    "USAID seeking better Ebola protective gear". The Seattle Times. 6 October 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2014. Done better reference
    "Sierra Leone's main referral hospital has been overwhelmed". StarAfrica. Retrieved 1 October 2014.
    "8 Ebola suspects freed by relatives in Sierra Leone". Global Post. Xinhua. 28 May 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2014.     Done better reference
    will replace--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]
    OK so far. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Within balance of probability. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Very broad in its coverage. Lots of detail, but I cannot say whether any of it is unnecessary.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All good
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

By section

Lead section:

Please check casualty figures against reference - Total suspected cases and total deaths do not tally with local cases in infobox and 1st paragraph.
Ok, this is something we went thru in the process of the covering the outbreak....1. the table at the bottom of the article reflects the numbers (not including flare-ups) since the thinking was the main outbreak was over, though there could be additional isolated cases (flare-ups) but not the mass outbreak that had been observed until then... 2. the infobox does include the flare-up numbers (however should you believe an adjustment is warranted I am open to any adjustment in text (or numbers)?....(the infobox numbers and lede numbers are the same)
The current reference gives 28616 suspected cases and 11310 deaths against 28657 and 11325 in the lede and infobox, and the totals at the bottom of the columns in the infobox are not arithmetically correct sums of the figures above them in the columns. Either there are errors, or something is missing. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your correct, (it was the last two countries to have flare ups, I adjusted the numbers)... however if you look at these numbers [16] (minus UK and Italy that are not there, but had 1 case each) and add it to [17] youll get the number at the bottom?? (and it still does not add up)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article title in 1st sentence not bolded. I don't understand the hidden comment referring. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold. Done..
(the WP:SBE means Wikipedia:Superfluous_bolding_explained I have deleted the hidden comment and "bolded")
OK, sorted.
I could not find Sardinia mentioned in the reference given.
Reference added  Done
Although the epidemic is no longer out of control, flare-ups of the disease are likely to continue for some time. How long? Does this refer to some time from March 2016? Is this statement still valid?
According to this statement from WHO [18] the answer is yes, however as time goes by the possibilities diminish (over time). That is not to say an independent new outbreak could start, however it would not be seen as a continuation of this one, I could cite this in the text if you think appropriate?
Sorry, nor expressing myself well. My point is that "for some time" is an indefinite duration with an unclear starting point. Will it still be a valid statement in 3 months, or a year, assuming no-one edits it? It would be preferable if a more definite period could be indicated, so it can be clear whether further outbreaks would be considered part of this epidemic, or a distinct later event. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your correct will adjust wording, and post here..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk12:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)......Although the epidemic is no longer out of control, flare-ups of the disease for some time were likely, however the possibility of sexually transmission of survivors to others is still possible ...this statement is true due to [19]...i have adjusted the wording and added a reference  Done...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

Outbreak
[20] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At last flareup there would have been at least one country in yellow, indicating isolated cases. Map is all green and blue. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
right will adjust text[21]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my wordsearch is temporarily off, I'm having trouble finding where it says 2 year old?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw that in one of the other references, not in the article. Don't worry about it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the epidemic waned, following international control efforts, the 8 April 2015 edition of WHO's Ebola Situation Reports stated that a total of 30 cases were reported[50][69] These references do not support the number quoted, and there is no link to 8 April ed of setrep, which probably does. It is a little confusing. If the sitrep gives 30 as the number, why are the other refs there? Also clarify if these were new cases. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[22] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guinea
[23] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paragraphs in this section mention a large number of dates, without specifying the year. It would be easier to keep track if the year was specified in the first date mentioned in any paragraph, and at any point where the year changes (I don't think this second case actually occurs, but bear it in mind in case I have missed an instance. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes I see your point and will look over that text, you are correct it is important that the reader know if it is 2014,2015 or 2016. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[24] Done[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sierra Leone
[25] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liberia
  • CDC is mentioned several times in this section. Even if there is only one CDC, most readers will not know this, particularly non-Americans. Suggest you either link first instance in the section or clarify some other way.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[26] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of Epidemiology

Other subsections OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virology

OK.: • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission

[32] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Containment and control

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

Prognosis

OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Ebola syndrome

OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Level of care

OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare settings
Protective clothing

Define or link PAPR. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[33] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare workers

OK. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental treatments, vaccines and testing

About 15 different vaccines were in preclinical stages of development; these included DNA vaccines, virus-like particles and viral vectors (vesicular stomatitis virus, human adenovirus, and vaccinia virus). Another 7, as yet unheard-of, vaccines (ChAd3, MVA-BNFilo, Ad26, MVA-EBOZ, rAd5, rVSV and VLP), were also being developed. Wikilink these where possible. This is pretty opaque to the lay person. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done though not all could be wikilink (redlink)[34]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with redlinks • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added redlinks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook

Statistical measures

Define CFR again for this section or wikilink. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[35] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic effects

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[36] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
combined--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[37] Done[reply]
  • Employment and the economy, it was believed, would also lead to health consequences in the long-term – cross-country interactions between income per capita and mortality rates were noted. Clarify - seems somewhat confused to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strike text[38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]
fixed[39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]
of its normal business, (per prior years)...will fix text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[40] Done[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

that's the term used [41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then that would make a good reference for the statement. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good, its already included--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of WHO
  • There has been significant criticism of the WHO from some aid agencies because its response was perceived as slow and insufficient, is a bit on the weaselly side. Could this be more specific? I see it is detailed in the following text. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
----------
  • The panel indicated that the response begged strong operational capacity within the WHO and as well as the aid system, if outbreaks turned into emergencies; a politically protected system for WHO emergency declarations; and strong mechanisms for the responsibility of all parties, from national governments to non-governmental organizations to UN agencies. Furthermore, mobilisation of the understanding needed to fight outbreaks would require an international structure of rules to enable access to the benefits of research, and financing to establish technology when commercial motivations were not appropriate. Can this be rewritten so the meaning is immediately clear? The rest of the paragraph might also benefit by more straightforward language. Who are the "panel", and are all instances of "they" in this paragraph referring to this panel? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the panel refers to [42] (abstract, ive got access to Science direct should the full text be needed)...they is interchangeable w/ panel...I will flesh out the text in question towards a clearer meaning--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)....have changed text [43] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of reported cases and deaths

yes, for the table information (in some instances we would go directly to the site of the ministry of "x,y,z country" as many times they were faster with case and mortality counts than WHO) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest putting the data sources information as either a note included in the table, or if it refers to both tables, as a footnote linked from both tables. Then you would not need subsections in the timeline section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[44] is this ok?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something like this:
Major Ebola virus outbreaks by country and by date – to most recent WHO / Gov update- 14 Jan 2016
Date Total Guinea Liberia Sierra Leone Sources
Cases Deaths Cases Deaths Cases Deaths Cases Deaths
14 Jan 2016 28,542 11,299 3,806 2,535 10,675 4,809 14,061 3,955 [note 1][1]
23 Dec 2015 28,542 11,299 3,806 2,535 10,676 4,809 14,061 3,955 [2]
9 Dec 2015 28,542 11,299 3,806 2,535 10,675 4,809 14,061 3,955 [3]
25 Nov 2015 28,539 11,298 3,806 2,535 10,672 4,808 14,061 3,955 [4]
11 Nov 2015 28,539 11,298 3,806 2,535 10,672 4,808 14,061 3,955 [5]
25 Oct 2015 28,539 11,298 3,800 2,534 10,672 4,808 14,061 3,955 [6]
11 Oct 2015 28,454 11,297 3,800 2,534 10,672 4,808 13,982 3,955 [7]
Note 1: Cases include confirmed, probable and suspected per the WHO, numbers are the cumulative figures as published on the given date, and due to retrospective revisions, differences between successive weekly totals are not necessarily the number of new cases that week.

Note 2: Data are from reports by the WHO Global Alert and Response Unit[Resource 1] and the WHO's Regional Office for Africa.[Resource 2] All numbers are correlated with UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), if available.[Resource 3] The reports were sourced from official information from the affected countries' health ministries. The WHO has stated that the reported numbers "vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak", estimating there may be three times as many cases as officially reported.[8][9][10]

great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[45] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)....[reply]
I am not sure what should go in, so I will just add an extra full width row at the bottom and you can copy/paste the text into it. If you have a problem, let me know.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to main and see also articles are both redirects, Do you prefer the names as they are? If it does not matter, I suggest using the current article names to eliminate the redirect, but not a big issue.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
prefer as they are (should you really think the alternative is better then i'll edit it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, No problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no reason to have that part--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]
Now that there is no "Data sources" subsection, the subsection title for "tables" seems redundant. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
removed[46] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Why is this not a level 2 section after See also as suggested in WP:FNNR?

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date is the "as of" date from the reference. A single source may report statistics for multiple "as of" dates.
  • Numbers with ≥ may not be consistent due to under reporting.
Do you know what these bulleted notes refer to? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
since the Ebola outbreak was so fast in mortality around summer of 2014, a lot of underreporting was suspected, particularly w/ Sierra Leone 14,122 /3,955 if you notice number and the percentage is way off, it was suspected that undercounting was going on. Therefore, ≥ meant equal or greated than the number that was actually being reported. To expand, Liberia and Guinea had numbers that were in line (more or less) w/ the mortality rate though it was still suspected that in villages (or towns) that were more remote there was undercounting as well. However, in terms of Sierra Leone the numbers of cases to death never added up.[47]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant. There are no backlinks, so which part of the text are they referring to? The tables? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes the tables... it was eventually placed at West_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic_timeline_of_reported_cases_and_deaths b/c the tables had gotten so long they needed to be shortened--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are still relevant, maybe they could also go in at the bottom of the tables. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the reason they were placed in a separate article was that we had too much, what was left was the basic last days of the outbreak, plus the infobox--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can they be deleted? They do not seem to serve any useful purpose at present. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sure, however Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management and Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics might find the information useful...[48]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "as of" apply to both tables?
I can't find any numbers with ≥ • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as of to both tables, I will remove the greater than/equal symbol--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[49] Done[reply]
"as of" should then be linked from the "Date" cell of both tables, or included in the internal notes for both tables, otherwise it is not apparent what it applies to. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[50] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like we are done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Further reading

OK • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completed • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  1. This is a very big article. It is unlikely that many readers will have the interest or attention span to actually read the whole thing at a sitting. Consider splitting it at some stage. This is a big job, and not a requirement of the GA criteria. I don't require it to be done, just saying consider the possibility, particularly if you want to take it to FA at some time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, I will (I'm almost done with the references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no idea if there is a MEDMOS order for the sections for epidemics. I looked but couldn't find one. If there is I trust you will have conformed as required. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles though as you point out there is no exact rule/blueprint--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have finished the basic review. There were not many problems, and most have already been satisfactorily fixed. I will be away most of tomorrow, so will probably only be able to check back on Monday. Leave a note when you have dealt with all the outstanding items, so I know when best to start the final check. If you have any queries before that, feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Passed. I think I have done all the associated manual administrative edits required of the reviewer. Good work. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, it was a privilege to work w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

notes

  1. ^ "Latest Ebola outbreak over in Liberia; West Africa is at zero, but new flare-ups are likely to occur". World Health Organization. WHO. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  2. ^ "Ebola Situation Report - 23 September 2015 | Ebola". apps.who.int. WHO. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  3. ^ "Ebola Situation Report - 9 December 2015 | Ebola". apps.who.int. WHO. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  4. ^ "Ebola Situation Report - 25 November 2015 | Ebola". apps.who.int. WHO. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  5. ^ "Ebola Situation Report - 11 November 2015 | Ebola". apps.who.int. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  6. ^ "EBOLA SITUATION REPORT 28 OCTOBER 2015" (PDF). World Health Organization. 28 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
  7. ^ "EBOLA SITUATION REPORT 14 OCTOBER 2015" (PDF). World Health Organization. 14 October 2015. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference CDC Estimating future number of cases was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Miles, Tom (22 October 2014). "Official WHO Ebola toll near 5,000 with true number nearer 15,000". Reuters. Retrieved 11 April 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ "Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 22 August 2014". WHO. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
answered/(90 day)

July 2016 map in Epidemiology: Outbreak section

When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well it gives the reader (via the image) how far the epidemic affected the globe and therefore important from that perspective...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the map should be restructured like it is in the article - "countries with widespread epidemic", "countries with limited local cases" etc. I agree that the current map is not so useful anymore.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps more opinions would be useful...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(same IP as above) I am not suggesting there shouldn't be a map showing the countries that were affected. I am saying that now that it is over and there are no more cases, the current situation - 'Ebola-free after prior cases', is no longer drawing an important distinction, while it overrides the first three categories, widespread, limited local, and isolated, that would be more informative. More information would be conveyed using a map with four useful categories: widespread, limited local, isolated, and medical-evacuation, indicating the condition during the epidemic, as opposed to what is effectively two - medical-evacuation and 'not infected any longer' that is forced on it by it representing the current rather than historical status. For that matter, the same applies to the map in the infobox - there is no longer a benefit to having separate colors to distinguish current from past outbreak countries in west Africa when the whole outbreak is past. This one is easily fixed by just removing the inset with the color key and tweaking the text description. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, I would recommend the following categories in the global map: 1) widespread - Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone; 2) limited - Mali, Nigeria, Texas; 3) isolated - New York, Sardinia, Scotland, Senegal, Spain; 4) medical evacuation - unchanged. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the article could benefit from your idea(as described I would be supportive of the change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other issue I have with the maps in this article is how there's a mixture of countries and subnational units. For uniformity, there needs to be an agreement on what should be used for the map; Sovereign states or subnational administrative units?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as in all the U.S. (as opposed to New York, Texas) indicated on the map?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; also UK, instead of Scotland. Conversely, if we want to use subnationals instead, we have to use Lagos and Rivers, instead of all Nigeria, or just Kayes instead of all of Mali, or just Dakar, instead of all Senegal. On another note; while this makes sense for the countries with local cases, it can become a nightmare for the three countries with widespread outbreak. Hence, I'd suggest just sticking with national boundaries. People who want to get into details can always read more in the appropriate sections. The current jumbled nature of the map is just not right.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to include the WHO's decision of August 11, 2014 to allow colloidal silver

Hi Ed's,

I feel that the WHO emergency move on August 11, 2014 to permit the use of colloidal silver was a landmark move in both the history of medical experimentation with colloidal silver, and in the history of the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014. It is potentially too important a detail to be leaving out of the known history intentionally. Can it be constructively re-included in the article in a way that preserves the topic's integrity?````lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking over this, I see that you cited this source to say that the WHO approved the use of colloidal silver, which that source DOES NOT SAY. That gives me little reason to trust you. You then follow with "Within a few months' time, major news agencies reported that the epidemic wave of 2014 had completely subsided" -- as if they were related. The source you cite for that doesn't say that it's because of colloidal silver.
Maybe if you tried being honest with your sources and quit trying to push quackery, we wouldn't revert you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source / documentation of August 11, 2014 decision by WHO to permit silver

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/

(Decision made by WHO on August 11 of that year and reported the following day)108.36.223.40 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc[reply]

That does NOT mention silver anywhere! Did you even read it? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
concur w/ Ian thomson--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver included per statement of Sierra Leone Minister of Information

Hi Ian,

Being new, I was hoping for a less caustic reception, per Wiki policy?

Here is documentation that silver was included in the allowed protocol: a West African news agency quoting the Sierra Leone Minister of Information saying that silver was a major part of the intervention:

http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/politics/10347-sierra-leone-tells-nano-silver-success-story

I have written to Gregory Hartl this morning, the media contact for the WHO panel that convened 8/11/14, to specifically ask him to verify that silver was among the approved "compassionate use" protocols, to corroborate the assertion by the Sierra Leone Minister of Information that it was.

I realize that you must have all sorts of people "pushing quakery" on Wikipedia, but please maintain an open mind that silver with its known broad-spectrum anti-microbial properties may have played an important emergency role in helping to curb the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, and if so, should be included in the timeline, even if only as a passing footnote. I do agree with you though that it's a leap to credit the unapproved drug entirely with staunching the outbreak of that year - there were also improvements in sanitation that played an important role.108.36.223.40 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc[reply]

Who's Tom? And why don't you have a medical source? And who are the editorial staff for The New Dawn? And what are their sources? They appear to be making up stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ian, As mentioned above, I've written the WHO directly this morning - please kindly give them a chance to respond.

Is it customary to list the editorial staff of a news periodical as part of a citation? I didn't see a space for that in the automated citation helper that popped up. Is listing the editorial staff done for all periodicals uniformly, or just for certain ones?

Here is the listing for the editorial staff of The New Dawn: Staff listing

EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT

Mr. Othello B. Garblah Managing Editor Email: o.garblah@thenewdawnliberia.com

E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor

News Editor Email: e.daygbor@thenewdawnliberia.com

The New Dawn news agency in Liberia states that they are quoting an interview of Sierra Leone Minister of Information Alpha Kanu in a primary interview by The Star Africa, a Sierra Leone news periodical.

I have also written the editor of the New Dawn this morning for the verification which you asked for, using my public pen name, which is Richard Robert Book (when I sign LGC on Wikipedia, I am using the initials of my own Christian name):

Dear Mr. Garblah,

In attempting to add a note about the importance of colloidal silver to the Wikipedia timeline of events leading up to the ending of the Ebola outbreak of 2014, I have quoted your article "Sierra Leone Tells Nano-Silver Success Story" in editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. An editor of Wikipedia, Mr. Ian Thompson, has publicly accused your newspaper, on Wikipedia, of making up the story. I believe that he is mistaken, and promised him that I'd write and ask you to verify that Mr. Alpha Kanu, the Sierra Leone Minister of Information at the time, was indeed interviewed by The Star Africa newspaper in Sierra Leone, which The New Dawn then quoted.

Please forgive the offensive nature of Mr. Thompson's tone - I believe that he is just trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia in good faith, and means no harm.

Thank you very kindly, Richard Robert Book rbook62@gmail.com 108.36.223.40 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal correspondence is not a reliable source. We have no idea who the New Dawn is -- as far as we can tell, they're just one guy making up stuff. They claim to be quoting another news source, but there's no evidence that that other news source even exists. And again -- they are not a medical source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, The WHO is a medical source. If colloidal silver is not mentioned by name on the August 12, 2014 press release of the August 11 emergency session (and none of the protocols appear to me mentioned by name), then a list of approved non-tested drugs may exist that can be accessed. I have re-written Mr. Hartlg, the public relations officer for the WHO emergency panel, and followed-up by asking him to give us a publicly accessible link to a list of un-trialled drugs that were permitted under that decision. 108.36.223.40 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc[reply]

"The WHO is a medical source" -- that does not mention silver, and has not claimed that silver has cured Ebola!
Again, personal correspondence does not matter -- for all we know, you are making up your letters.
You know what? Since you keep saying things that aren't in sources, keep expecting us to just accept your supposed correspondence, I'll do the same: I wrote a letter to every doctor in the world just now, and they said you're lying. According to this WHO page, you're lying. Do you see why we don't allow personal correspondence (i.e. whoever you say you're writing letters to) as a source now? Do you see why we require sources to actually say the thing they're being cited for? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Perhaps you missed my note, above, that I was writing to ask for a clickable link to documents that could be accessed by the public?

I've also written to the Minister of Health and Sanitation in Sierra Leone, Dr. Samuel Kargbo, for any links to public electronic information that can be accessed by everyone.108.36.223.40 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc[reply]

P.S. Ian, I think it's very important not to throw around loose language like "cured", such as you have above. Scientifically speaking, we can compare before and after mortality rates as the CDC has done and demonstrate an improvement, but we would not want to speak of a "cure," as the virus could easily be suppressed one day and then mutate the next. Please note that I have use such words as "curbed" and "staunched" and used them only in this less formal chat - words that should suggest containment of ongoing battles, such as the outbreak of 2014, and not the final victory in a larger "war" on the Ebola virus.108.36.223.40 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New recent outbreak should be added?

On May 11, 2017, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo notified international public health agencies of a cluster of suspected cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the province of Bas Uélé. The report mentions 9 cases, including two deaths, with a third death reported on May 12. Testing of samples was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) in Kinshasa, with one sample testing positive for Ebola Zaire by RT-PCR. The Ministry has deployed a team to the site to investigate further.

I tried to add this myself but was reverted for some unknown reason.

[1] 59.101.244.227 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=Resource> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Resource}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ 2017-may.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_African_Ebola_epidemic&oldid=781639290"