Talk:Weekly Epidemiological Record

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weekly Epidemiological Record article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

A fact from Weekly Epidemiological Record appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the World Health Organization's Weekly Epidemiological Record reports on neglected tropical diseases?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weekly Epidemiological Record.

Wikipedia

Academic Journals

	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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that during efforts to eradicate smallpox between 1968 and 1979, the World Health Organization's WER allowed frontline workers to appraise their own work and compare it with others? the WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record to publish clear and concise country-by-country updates on smallpox incidence, special problems and solutions: fieldworkers could see how they were doing compared with other states and countries [1]
- ALT1:... that the World Health Organization's Weekly Epidemiological Record reports on neglected tropical diseases? detailed data produced by WHO in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (WER) for all the NTDs in a systematic way [2]
- ALT2:... that the

Reviewed: Anna Hájková

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT1 - but it took me a click to realise neglected tropical diseases were 'a thing' - I wonder if adding (NTDs) at the end of hook, makes that clearer? Will leave for promoter to decide. Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is cited, a qpq is done, and I can't see any problems with neutrality. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]