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]
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]
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
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 [1] (minus UK and Italy that are not there, but had 1 case each) and add it to [2] 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..
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 [3] 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 [4]...i have adjusted the wording and added a reference Done...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Map of ongoing status is not dated and now shows situation after end of epidemic. Is this actually useful with current caption? Clarify status of map, preferably in caption. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Age of index case is quoted as 1 year and 2 years, This looks like an error, though the sources do differ. This should be clarified so it does not appear to be misquoted. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:04, 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]
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]
that same day, it was equally reported that Ebola restrictions had halted market activity in Kambia District, amid protests. equally reported? == also reported? • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
On 12 January, the journal Nature reported that the virus's natural host could be found by studying how bush-meat hunters interacted with the ecosystem Not really what the reference says. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it probably came from His team is studying how bush-meat hunters interact with wild ecosystems to identify factors that might be linked to the spillover of zoonotic infections such as Ebola[13] ...(will adjust the wording)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Done[14][reply]
or by contact with objects recently contaminated. It would be good to clarify exactly what constitutes contamination. The impression I have so far is that it would have to be with body fluids, but not I am not an expert - just like most of the potential readers. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 14:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
in both the affected areas and throughout Africa might be improved by a slight re-ordering to both in the affected areas and throughout Africa. Original suggests two affected areas. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
In the capital, Montserrado saw a 47% decline in employment per firm in contrast to what obtained prior to the Ebola outbreak. What does Montserrado have to do with the capital? • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 [27] (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 [28] Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
BTW in retrospect you seem to be more knowledgable than I about tables, I cant seem to do the same w/ the second table, would you have a suggestion?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 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]
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]
With the new formatting of the tables, is there any further value in keeping the subsection Data sources? ( the information is now in the notes of the first table ) • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 19:44, 30 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.[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 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]
"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]
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]
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]
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]
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).
