User:A.prdm93/sandbox

SF Plague Article (Rupert Blue)

Live from article: ...Blue spent his early years at MHS at the front lines of turn-of-the-century public health, participating in the medical inspection of immigrants to the United States and battling outbreaks of epidemic disease. Then-Surgeon General Walter Wyman dispatched Blue twice to oversee rat eradication and urban sanitation programs after bubonic plague struck San Francisco, once in April 1902 during the San Francisco plague of 1900–1904, and again in August 1907 during a second series which followed the 1906 earthquake and fires. Blue’s skilled diplomacy with California state and city officials and with civil and business leaders fostered successful public education campaigns, stemming plague and enabling Wyman to avoid imposing a Federal quarantine on the Bay area. His longtime friend and assistant Dr. W. Colby Rucker was a vital part of the San Francisco campaign and worked alongside Blue in New Orleans, where he later in 1914 personally took charge of the sanitary work there against the plague....

My notes from Risse book to implement into article:

• May 1903 Blue replaces Arthur H Glennan at the helm of the U.S. Public Health Service in SF

→Used this position to keep tabs on the political environment within the bay area and how it might affect sanitation ventures within Chinatown and surrounding areas both for himself and acting surgeon general Wyman

• Bulk of his work at this time consisted of seeking out and maintaining funds for sanitation campaigns across Chinatown through negotiations between the Mayoral office, the health board and SFs board of supervisors to name a few (all who at the time were conflicted on whether or not the plague existed within SF)
  • Demolitions
  • Rat extrications

→ by June of 1903 there were no further reports of plaque cases (sporadic cases had popped up since 1900) and Blue was sent away by urging of SF municipal government

• February 1903 Blue organized a conference at the PHS HQ in SF and brought together federal, state, and city health officials together to discuss the sanitation conditions in Chinatown and how to keep sanitation campaigns going in the area
  • This meeting was the first time that all branches were able to meet, put politics aside, and focus on what needed to be done to address the health condition of Chinatown
  • Decided to keep these meetings going on a biweekly cycle
  • Adopted a binding resolution that prioritized the continuation of implementation and maintained of sanitation efforts within Chinatown for as long as necessary until the city was plaque free.
• These meetings eventually evolved into the Public Health Commission of California (link to page)
  • Purpose of the commission was to “help in the formulation, interpretation, and imposition of sanitary regulations”
  • Blue was elected inaugural president
  • this occurred around April 1903

• Blue returned back to SF in February of 1903
  • Rat eradication was the main focus of Blue’s sanitation plans for Chinatown (anti-plaque campaign), due to increasing scientific evidence that they were the primary transports of the plaque [still Feb 1903]
    • Poisoned bait, Danysz plant (poisonous to rats not humans, but tolerance could be built)
    • Demolition of rotting wood removed possible rat nesting in Chinatown
      • Create permanent barriers between humans and rate via cementing basement floors and walls, broken drain systems repaired, areas underneath homes that harbored unsanitary conditions were filled in, ground and upper stories were covered in powder lime chloride and washed down with a bichloride solution, cracks/holes were filled/patched up
      • Prior to pouring cement up to a foot of subsoil was removed and burned to remove germs
      • Occurred from February 1903 thru March 1905 when funding ran out for campaign
      • During the time mortality rate in Chinatown dropped
      • No new plaque cases were reported

→Program called a success but very few numbers of rats captured where carriers

• Summer 1903 2 cases of plaque seen in Contra Costa as well as a sever die off of squirrels but no plaque found in animals (investigated by Blue)
• Early 1904s Blue double down his efforts to wipe our vermin by increase boundaries of areas in which plans would be focused

→ Blue’s focus on the rats showed the error in focusing on just Chinatown for the plaque

• April 1905 Blue succeeded the Public Health Service over to his assistance Donald Currie (link) and moved on to his next post in Norfolk

My proposed changes to article (would replace first paragraph in career section, then resume with second paragraph)

Blue spent his early years in the MHS at the front lines of turn-of-the-century public health, participating in the medical inspection of immigrants of the United States and battling outbreaks of epidemic disease. Then-Surgeon General Walter Wyman dispatched Blue twice to oversee rat eradication and urban sanitation programs after bubonic plague struck San Francisco, once in February 1903 during the [[San Fran[cisco plague of 1900–1904]], and again in August 1907 during a second series which followed the 1906 earthquake and fires.

During his initial deployment Blue acted as a middleman reporting back to Wyman concerning the political climate surrounding San Francisco. The majority of Blue’s work consisted of acting as a mediator between the various branches of government who at the time were conflicted on their opinions of whether or not the bubonic plague was actually present in San Francisco. Upon arriving Blue was able to organize a conference between the federal, state, civil and business leaders of the area to discuss the sanitation conditions in Chinatown, where the majority of plague cases were aggregated within the city.

Blue’s primary concern was to secure funding to improve the sanitation conditions of Chinatown through the implementation and maintenance of sanitation measures. These proposed measures consisted of vermin eradication, growing scientific evidence pointed to rats as carriers of the plague, and creating physical barriers between rats and humans through cementation of basement floors and walls.

This initial conference, organized by Blue, ended with the adaptation of a binding resolution that prioritized funding for sanitation campaigns throughout San Francisco until the city was declared plague free. This was the first time all levels of government had been able to put political differences aside and agree on a direction together. These conference meetings continue to occur on a biweekly notice, and eventually led to the creation of the Public Health Commission of California with Blue as it’s inaugural president in April of 1903.

Funding for these sanitation campaigns lasted from 1903 through 1905 at which time San Francisco was declared plague free due to a decrease in mortality rate within Chinatown and the lack of any new cases reported to officials. The success of these sanitation programs were credited to Blue for his diplomacy skills among the different levels of government. With the implementation of these programs Blue was able to stem the plague and enable Wyman to avoid imposing a federal quarantine on the bay area.

In April of 1905, with pressure from the municipal government of San Francisco and no new cases, Blue succeeded his position as head of the United State’s Public Health Service in San Francisco (after being appointed in May of 1903) to Donald Currie before heading off to his next post.

• need to add citations
• need to add links to other pages

Catherine Opie Wiki Page Citrique

• the little box to the right that has all of Cathrine's demographic information needs to be updated to include: a recent picture of her, her DOB, and current partner (if she has one)
  • on the note of her partner, I'm not sure if it's just proper wiki language to use the word partner or if it would be more appropriate to caller her partner her wife/girlfriend given that in the same sentence in which her partner is introduced it mentions they are living together. This might jut be a personal bias I have, but it's one of the first things I noticed that I kept coming back to while looking over the article
• The "work" subsection of the article page seems very long (it doesn't give readers very many breaks, jumping onto the next idea). I was thinking it might be beneficial to create a couple different subsections within the "work" section for different projects mentioned here in which the influences can be noted in a brief summary of the work.
  • it's also mentioned that she is now a UCLA photography professor yet nothing about the work she does there is discussed (find out what she's do to add here)
  • a subsection for administrative/board work she'd done in museums/galleries.
• on the talk page someone also mentioned a few upcoming exhibitions this year and into 2018 for the "700 Nimes Road" but they didn't want to post them on the article page because they were in the future. I think it'd be a great idea to add them to the page so anyone scrolling through can get a header up that theres an exhibition coming.
• the tone of the article is very neutral throughout it's entirety, especially when talking about her influences in the work and how while she draws her inspiration from personal moments and communities the challenges that might create for the interpretation of her work for those that might not know her of the community being portrayed

Katz, J. D., Hushka, R., Arning, B., & Stebich, S. A. (2015). Art AIDS America. Seattle ; London: Tacoma Art Museum in association with University of Washington Press.

1. Jump up ^  More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
2. Jump up ^  More than one of |pages= and |page=specified (help); Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help

"Evaluating Articles and Sources"

• The first paragraph/sentence seems really busby with a lot of extra facts thats might be more appropriately placed in its own section describing the evolution of the actual viral pathology of AIDS. I had to keep going back to omit facts in-between comas to remember what the subject of the sentence was.
• Multiple sentences missing citations (stating facts or statistics that I'm assuming s/he obtained from other sources for which those sources aren't cited) throughout the entire article
• In terms of content and organization, I think that the article would benefit from an additional section (or subsection) in which the pathology of the virus was briefly summarized because it feels un-complete to have an independent section regarding treatments but not for pathology. Especially since, as I previously mentioned, the facts about the pathology of the virus are clogging other sentences trying to get a different point across. (If they hadn't bothered with treatment I don't think it'd be such an issue to omit the pathology)
• As is common in most conversations about HIV/AIDS the association with the gay community is mentioned and identified, but I think it'd be worth-while (and out of the norm) to include representation from hemophiliacs during the mention of the epidemic since they were another major group affected.
• The language under "medical treatment" feels biased with the use of adjectives such as "great" (I'm not saying its not a good thing just not the best arena to use the language because it could bring your voice as an editor to question), other than these couple sentences with iffy word choice for the most part the article is very neutral and presents biases as a basis from certain perspectives.
• Along with multiple facts verified by their citations, a lot of the data (specifically the demographic numbers) seem out of date -assuming that the news demographical numbers are out.
• In that same train of thought, when it comes to demographics it seems like we're only getting New York's numbers. But the article is suppose to be able the entire US and in the open sentences mentions San Francisco and Los Angeles so it'd probably be a good idea to get those numbers included. Or if the other cities are omitted because they're no longer areas of increased risk for the disease then that should be noted.
• This article is part of multiple WikiProjects, but upon looking over the talk page it doesn't seem like much has been done since earlier this year (January 2017), and even then those where when the last responses are time stamped but these conversation haven't seemed to lead to much change.
• The conversations in the talk page for this article also seem a little hostile between editors debating changes made or proposed.