Ebola virus disease was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.
Jessi Turnure (3 October 2014). "Study: Most Wikipedia articles about medical conditions contain errors". KAIT. I Google Ebola and the second one is Wikipedia," he said. "That's the first one people click on because they think, 'Well, it's the easiest and maybe it's the best.'" But Dr. Speights said that's wrong. He noticed errors early on in the Wikipedia article on Ebola. [...] "They [c]ited the New York Times Magazine. We don't do that. (details)
Main articles: Ebola virus cases in the United States, Ebola virus disease in Spain and Ebola virus disease in the United Kingdom
As of 15 October 2014, there have been 17 cases of Ebola treated outside of Africa, four of whom have died.
In early October, Teresa Romero, a 44-year-old Spanish nurse, contracted Ebola after caring for a priest who had been repatriated from West Africa. This was the first transmission of the virus to occur outside of Africa. On 20 October, it was announced that Teresa Romero had tested negative for the Ebola virus, suggesting that she may have recovered from Ebola infection."
I think we must add this, o some like this:
Finally on November 1st Teresa Romero leaves the isolation room because doctors considered that there was no risk of infection of the disease.
While the heading hints at the start of a possible world-wide outbreak, the text presents another picture. For, as of 15 October 2014, there have been 17 cases of Ebola treated outside of Africa, "four of whom have died". Should not the heading be deleted, or made to reflect that risk of catching Ebola outside of Africa is very, very low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Further to the reference, under abstract results, wouldn't an infected person produce antibodies against the virus, even if they were injected with a vaccine (for a different virus string)" was asked on the article page.
Ebola: The world-wide outbreak that never was
With over-the-top images of people wearing protective gear, this article has at times given the impression that Ebola was about to get us all. And yet, on 8 April 2015, the WHO reported a total of only 30 confirmed cases, "the lowest weekly total since the third week of May 2014". While very nasty, Ebole simply cannot be compared with the likes of the 1918 flu outbreak. Since Ebola is not about to go world-wide, any-time-soon, should not this article drop the MSM scare tactics and present the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think someone would have to be overly excitable to think this article is even remotely "over the top" in either the writing or the images. What facts do you think are not being presented? Deli nk (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, while condemning the whole article would seem less-than-reasonable, is it possible to question the use (or misuse) of an image. Not so much the lack of facts - more the way they are used? Not a case of evidence being sexed-up - more an issue of some evidence being mis-presented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes that is how Ebola is stopped. Proper protective equipment. One of the people in the lead image is not wearing eye protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
While funding, training and correct protective equipment played it's part, did not the 'outbreak' just run its' natural cause? And now, despite some fear-producing reporting, the latest WHO information shows that Ebola simply cannot be compared with the likes of the 1918 Flu outbreak. Set against this, is not the use of Doomsday type images a little over-the-top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
If it had been allowed to run its natural course it would be on its way to killing 70% of the human race. Siuenti (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope it did not "run its natural course". Billion of dollars were spent and was effective in curtailing spread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Doomed! We were all Doomed! Really? For would not someone have to be overly-excitable to believe that - without preventive actions - Ebola would now be "on its way to killing 70% of the human race"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
At what point do you think the chains of infection would break if nothing was done? Siuenti (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
While any lack of action would be unwelcome news - at a local level - world-wide, Ebola is unlikely to kill anywhere near 70% of the whole human race. So, after all the MSM stories-of-doom, was the 70% claim a wise or reasonable statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason it is unlikely to kill that many people is that action will probably be taken to stop it spreading. Siuenti (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if we were in the state we were when the Spanish flu broke out in 1919, in addition to having the commercial air travel network we do today, Ebola would have ravaged a significant number of people (Not 70%, maybe 20%). But that is conjecture, as is this whole discussion, so I'm closing it. Don't feed the trolls. - Floydianτ¢ 23:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored - and we are all Charlie now
Any attempts to Talk about fear and Ebola have been "blocked at every turn. Beautifully synchronized - don't you agree?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)