This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ozzie10aaaa (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 24 October 2022 (→Countries given coverage in the political impact section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:29, 24 October 2022 by Ozzie10aaaa (talk | contribs) (→Countries given coverage in the political impact section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
COVID-19 pandemic is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Ozzie10aaaa (talk) at 12:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
| |||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Want to add new information about COVID-19? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
|
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
|
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.(RfC March 2020) 02. Superseded by #7 The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020) 03. Obsolete The article should not use
{{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)
04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)
05. CancelledInclude subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)
Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024) 06. Obsolete There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)
08. Superseded by #16 The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.(RfC April 2020) 09. Cancelled
Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease.
(April 2020)
Notes
- Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.
- An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).
010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)
011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China
to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)
first identifiedand
December 2019. (May 2020) 013. Superseded by #15 File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption
U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)(May 2020, June 2020) 014. Overturned Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)
015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)
016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)
017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)
018. Superseded by #19 The first sentence is.jpg){kind=link}
The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).(August 2021, RfC October 2023)
019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
(June 2024)
"Transition to endemic phase" as a level-2 section
Two months ago, SmolBrane added a new level-2 section, "Transition to endemic phase", linking to an article they had recently created. When I checked in on this article yesterday, I noticed it and attempted to merge it into the history section. My rationale is that this information is just an aspect of the recent history of the pandemic, and as such it should go in the history section. (And indeed, it's a much better way to talk about recent history than the current proseline in that section.) SmolBrane reverted me, restoring the section. Could others weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think we could probably merge into history, and if the user wants a name, we could add 1-2 word names for each of the history periods
- *2019 China
- *2020 Spread
- *2021 Global
- *2022 Endemic
- If we cannot agree on the one word summaries (seems unlikely) then maybe just add it to 2022. I dont agree that it must have its own section. Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished.
This is a pretty egregious misapplication of the MOS. The style guide doesn't trump WP:NOR, which "it's obvious to me the pandemic is over" is. If anything, WP:OBVIOUS tells us we should explicitly state that the WHO considers the pandemic to be ongoing, since it'snot necessarily obvious to the reader
. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)- If the WHO drags their feet too much with regard to other jurisdictions, we may have to essentially de-prioritize their commentary. We aren't there yet, but it's important to discuss steelmen. I can imagine a circumstance where a majority of non-MEDRS sources could consider COVID endemic based on political or sociological or economic decisions, and it would be our job(likely) to defer to that observation. SmolBrane (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that being endemic in some locations and globally recognized as a pandemic are not mutually exclusive things. See Smallpox#Eradication for a similar example where it was nationally eradicated, but endemic elsewhere.
- But my real concern is with the misuse of the style guide to suggest content decisions are allowed to be based on original research. That's the kind of thing that makes collaborative editing impossible, and potentially leads to sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate please? Where is the misuse of the style guide, and where is the OR? SmolBrane (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The comment by Jtbobwaysf above linked to the Manual of Style explanatory essay WP:OBVIOUS, in an apparent attempt to misrepresent it as supporting the WP:OR claim that "everyone" knows "the pandemic is more or less finished". As my above comment indicates, WP:OBVIOUS actually recommends that we may need to reiterate that the pandemic is indeed ongoing according to the WHO, because the avoidance of doubt through providing this context is more important than leaving the context unstated in an attempt to use less prose. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed; apologies--my brain is extra small today. What 'everyone knows' is anecdotal and OR for sure, I guess my point was simply that if those anecdotes aggregate into political decisions and coverage in secondary sources, we may have to change our tone. SmolBrane (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm sure there's a discussion of notability and due weight to be had, but WP:OBVIOUS is very much not it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's obvious it is ongoing in an endemic fashion. It seems the WHO seems to dispute that, but given the coverage on both sides we can include the controversy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's not what WP:OBVIOUS is about. I think you're possibly looking for WP:BLUESKY, but even there if there's a "controversy" than referring to it in terms of 'obviousness' is counterproductive. Again, this gives the impression of WP:OR (
Its pretty wp:obvious to everyone that the pandemic is more or less finished
apparently elevates personal opinion over the global public health organization in charge of such a declaration), instead of pointing to reliable sources which dispute the WHO's categorization and how we describe that dispute in a WP:DUE manner. - To be clear, I welcome any clarification on what you mean, but the above reference to WP:OBVIOUS remains troubling to me. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's not what WP:OBVIOUS is about. I think you're possibly looking for WP:BLUESKY, but even there if there's a "controversy" than referring to it in terms of 'obviousness' is counterproductive. Again, this gives the impression of WP:OR (
- Indeed; apologies--my brain is extra small today. What 'everyone knows' is anecdotal and OR for sure, I guess my point was simply that if those anecdotes aggregate into political decisions and coverage in secondary sources, we may have to change our tone. SmolBrane (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The comment by Jtbobwaysf above linked to the Manual of Style explanatory essay WP:OBVIOUS, in an apparent attempt to misrepresent it as supporting the WP:OR claim that "everyone" knows "the pandemic is more or less finished". As my above comment indicates, WP:OBVIOUS actually recommends that we may need to reiterate that the pandemic is indeed ongoing according to the WHO, because the avoidance of doubt through providing this context is more important than leaving the context unstated in an attempt to use less prose. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate please? Where is the misuse of the style guide, and where is the OR? SmolBrane (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- If the WHO drags their feet too much with regard to other jurisdictions, we may have to essentially de-prioritize their commentary. We aren't there yet, but it's important to discuss steelmen. I can imagine a circumstance where a majority of non-MEDRS sources could consider COVID endemic based on political or sociological or economic decisions, and it would be our job(likely) to defer to that observation. SmolBrane (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure History is the right spot for something bordering on speculation for future policies (E.g. the Human Genomics article).
- There's already a Living with COVID-19 subsection, and these two topics are so overlapping that it seems to be a bit odd to have both in separate sections. I get that it's two distinct topics - one on the epidemiology of the disease, the other public health strategies - but the latter stems from the former. I'd like to see us try and combine the two with either a short bit of prose, or with transclusion from the two articles so we're not having to maintain both. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Living with COVID is a policy in the UK and has a fair bit of sourcing; it was the article I spun the endemic phase article off of. I had previously suggested renaming that article to make it a subset of endemicity, essentially, which may still be the right choice(edit--that is to say--living with covid is a subset of endemicity). Endemicity broadly construed is not historical and its dueness and significance warrants a section; regardless--both endemic phase of COVID 19 and Living with COVID-19 would constitute a POV fork if they are not correctly summarized on this article as per WP:SUMMARY. Just expanding my thoughts here, not trying to make a point for/against bakkster man's comments here. I get the impression from a variety of COVID articles that it's kind of difficult to separate the timelines from the sections and how to contrain such timelines and sections. SmolBrane (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is part of the root issue: is Living With COVID actually a subset of endemicity, or an orthogonal idea? Depending on which part of the concept you look it, it could be both. I wonder how much of this is just a result of trying to do too much with current (and politically charged) events, and could use a bit of WP:TENYEARTEST applied. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Noting here that Living with COVID-19 and Endemic phase of COVID-19 have been boldly merged. SmolBrane (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Living with COVID is a policy in the UK and has a fair bit of sourcing; it was the article I spun the endemic phase article off of. I had previously suggested renaming that article to make it a subset of endemicity, essentially, which may still be the right choice(edit--that is to say--living with covid is a subset of endemicity). Endemicity broadly construed is not historical and its dueness and significance warrants a section; regardless--both endemic phase of COVID 19 and Living with COVID-19 would constitute a POV fork if they are not correctly summarized on this article as per WP:SUMMARY. Just expanding my thoughts here, not trying to make a point for/against bakkster man's comments here. I get the impression from a variety of COVID articles that it's kind of difficult to separate the timelines from the sections and how to contrain such timelines and sections. SmolBrane (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Crystal issue
Suggestions on how to deal with this sentence COVID-19_pandemic#Transition_to_endemic_phase: "While the COVID-19 pandemic is still considered ongoing by the World Health Organization, it may become endemic in the future" This sentence is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Maybe we need to restate it that some scientists consider it already endemic? Or some other suggestion? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have made a change, please comment if anyone wants. The intent was to keep the meaning intact, if I didnt please feel free to change it. I also got rid of the one sentence breaks, we dont need one sentence paragraphs...Lets be brief on a long article like this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted, I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL concern.
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
I would like to reiterate my concern from above, about your incorrectly citing policy when justifying edits. I strongly suggest you voluntarily seek consensus for such edits prior to making them in the future (for the avoidance of doubt, 4.5 hours is insufficient to presume agreement through lack of comment). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)- A couple things—firstly I see no issue with bold edits; this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. I have therefore added the recent clearly DUE comments by Tedros repeated in reliable secondary sources. If we are in a good position to “end the pandemic”, this is a statement suggesting endemicity for our purposes. The statement that COVID “may become endemic in the future” is not stated in the Al Jazeera source cited and it is CRYSTAL. If the WHO wants to POV fork with itself, then we can just quote them. SmolBrane (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I see no issue with bold edits
, and neither do I in general. My concern is what I feel was the apparent continued misinterpretation of the WP:PAG being cited, alongside bold edits or not.this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is.
Page protection typically makes consensus building easier by allowing editors to focus on that, rather than fixing vandalism. I'm confused why you think page protection makes collaboration any more difficult here.Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion.
This is a weak WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)- Page protection disables editing and it's not apparent to me that marginalizing editors with arbitrary edit counts is better than the risks of vandalism. I very deeply value the collaborative nature of wiki.
- (OTHERCONTENT)If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere. There is no space right now--that exists between pandemic and endemicity which was confirmed with the deletion of Living with COVID-19. This is not an othercontent argument; it is an observation that DUE comments like this need to be explicitly categorized by us, since experts seem unwilling to use epidemiological terms. SmolBrane (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you really think page protection should be removed, that should be another discussion to get consensus to ask the admins to lift it. Having been editing here during the worst parts of disruption that caused the original semi-protect and upgrade to ECP, I think you may be underestimating how draining the vandalism was, and how much it interfered with consensus building. I'll also note, this Talk page is not protected (like several of the most disrupted COVID pages) in order to permit this kind of consensus building on Talk. Any brand new IP can participate in this discussion.
If Tedros makes very DUE comments around the "end in sight", we need to put those comments somewhere.
I very much agree, the comments added are notable, and I agree with their being in the article in the current location. I'm only opposed to the idea that another page's merge means 'de facto endemicity'. Especially since the original dispute was over how we paraphrased a comments. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- This edit reverted and re-added WP:CRYSTAL. Please fix the crystal issue. Whatever localconsensus is reached on this page does not over-ride the crystal issue. Find another way to state it. You have two editors here noting the issue, maybe some others will chime in with support for your position, but if not, be prepared to fix it. Or we can run an RFC. What do you prefer? As for me, I dont have a specific position on how it is stated, as long as it matches the source and is not a future speculation, which it is now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it got cleaned up. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I again don't think WP:CRYSTAL is what you mean to cite. The claim that we are in a "position to end the pandemic" is just as inapplicable to CRYSTAL as it "may become endemic in the future" is. CRYSTAL is concerned with our own predictions of the future, not with "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" making notable predictions or forecasts.
- In an attempt to move things forward, I think your root concern is better described as looking for a better source with a closer portrayal in the article (WP:V, and WP:RS). I thought the previous prose was a reasonable paraphrase, but the new source is better, and has fewer questions around whether our prose matches the source with the quote. I agree, it's an improvement. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- "May become endemic in the future" was our words though, it didn't appear in the source, in a "position to end the pandemic" is a quote from Tedros. Isn't that the difference? SmolBrane (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm saying our dispute is probably more about whether a direct quote or a paraphrase were better, as in MOS:QUOTE, and whether our paraphrase was accurate to the source or needed rewording. Either way, the more recent source is better than the previous one for directly addressing the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- "May become endemic in the future" was our words though, it didn't appear in the source, in a "position to end the pandemic" is a quote from Tedros. Isn't that the difference? SmolBrane (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it got cleaned up. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- A couple things—firstly I see no issue with bold edits; this article has enough protection preventing collaboration as it is. Secondly, Living with COVID-19 was merged without dispute into Endemic phase of COVID-19 which I believe means that any de facto statements surround 'new normal', 'here to stay' and sentiments of this nature demonstrate endemicity unless editors can prove otherwise in a way that warrants exclusion. I have therefore added the recent clearly DUE comments by Tedros repeated in reliable secondary sources. If we are in a good position to “end the pandemic”, this is a statement suggesting endemicity for our purposes. The statement that COVID “may become endemic in the future” is not stated in the Al Jazeera source cited and it is CRYSTAL. If the WHO wants to POV fork with itself, then we can just quote them. SmolBrane (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted, I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL concern.
Refocus
There's been some good discussion here, but I'd like to refocus and get some further input on the opening question. To me, developments in the course of an event, even if recent/ongoing, belong in the history section of that event's article. And a transition to a new phase of the pandemic is by definition such an event. Do others support nesting this content under the level-2 history section? {{u|Sdkb}} 03:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Which content are you proposing nesting under history? Because the transition we're talking about is not recent or ongoing, it's expected to happen in the future. Until it actually happens, I don't think it's appropriate wholesale in the History section. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- For content that's merely speculating, even if it's sourced and thus not fully crystal, I think it's due for only a sentence or few, not a full section. {{u|Sdkb}} 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it's due, which is why it's in the section it's currently in, and has a dedicated article where more detail can be given. I'm just not sure it's History yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm all for agreement, but if I think it's due for a sentence and you think it's due for four paragraphs and an image (the current length of the section), then we're not exactly on the same page. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would find a more specific proposal easier to comment on. Right now, I think the two sentences in Transition to endemic phase with the link to the main article Endemic phase of COVID-19 is appropriate quantity and placement. There are only five sentences in the History > 2020 section currently, and even as just 1 of 6 sentences I worry this unofficial speculation (I'd have a very different opinion to an official WHO recategorization) would be UNDUE in the recap of the entire year (think WP:10YT). The current section discusses the European Omicron death toll, two new WHO recommended treatments, an updated estimate of global infections, an update to the global death toll, and the B.4 and B.5 sub-variants. I don't see the above sources and discussion fitting better in the History section, it's just not nearly as notable as the other topics of discussion, and I'd suggest not even close enough to have a reasonable argument supporting it. Maybe I've missed something, please let me know. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- This was the edit I made that was reverted, and that I came to talk here seeking consensus to restore. {{u|Sdkb}} 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, I stand by what I said above. That's significantly more weight than I think is appropriate in this context. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with anything from zero weight up to a modest amount. The main thing I care about is that we not introduce a new level-2 section for something that's fundamentally not a level-2 aspect of the pandemic. Just looking at the table of contents, it seems clear to me that "History," "Etymology," "Disease," and "Impact" are broad, high-level subtopics. "Transition to endemic phase" is not. {{u|Sdkb}} 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that the threshold for a heading is to be as broad as the examples you give. "Transition to endemic phase" feels similarly as broad as "Information dissemination", the section immediately above.
- I remain unconvinced we need to move this under a level 2 heading, but in the interest of consensus building I'd recommend one of them further down the page so we don't give WP:UNDUE
prominence of placement
. Other Responses and Impact being the two options, and it feels to me like the bottom section remains the best option. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)- agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with anything from zero weight up to a modest amount. The main thing I care about is that we not introduce a new level-2 section for something that's fundamentally not a level-2 aspect of the pandemic. Just looking at the table of contents, it seems clear to me that "History," "Etymology," "Disease," and "Impact" are broad, high-level subtopics. "Transition to endemic phase" is not. {{u|Sdkb}} 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, I stand by what I said above. That's significantly more weight than I think is appropriate in this context. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- This was the edit I made that was reverted, and that I came to talk here seeking consensus to restore. {{u|Sdkb}} 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would find a more specific proposal easier to comment on. Right now, I think the two sentences in Transition to endemic phase with the link to the main article Endemic phase of COVID-19 is appropriate quantity and placement. There are only five sentences in the History > 2020 section currently, and even as just 1 of 6 sentences I worry this unofficial speculation (I'd have a very different opinion to an official WHO recategorization) would be UNDUE in the recap of the entire year (think WP:10YT). The current section discusses the European Omicron death toll, two new WHO recommended treatments, an updated estimate of global infections, an update to the global death toll, and the B.4 and B.5 sub-variants. I don't see the above sources and discussion fitting better in the History section, it's just not nearly as notable as the other topics of discussion, and I'd suggest not even close enough to have a reasonable argument supporting it. Maybe I've missed something, please let me know. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm all for agreement, but if I think it's due for a sentence and you think it's due for four paragraphs and an image (the current length of the section), then we're not exactly on the same page. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it's due, which is why it's in the section it's currently in, and has a dedicated article where more detail can be given. I'm just not sure it's History yet. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- For content that's merely speculating, even if it's sourced and thus not fully crystal, I think it's due for only a sentence or few, not a full section. {{u|Sdkb}} 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I oppose minimizing the effective end of the pandemic to below level 2... at the moment this means the Endemic phase section. It's a bit clunky but until sources commenting on the end of the pandemic have a clear home other than 'endemic phase' I think it's best to keep it the way it is. The section has seen three significant additions in four days(Tedros' remarkable statements which probably has dozens of citations, the image, and the Indonesian development). SmolBrane (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
|}
The bigger issue--the end of the pandemic
Is there going to be an article on the end of the pandemic? I can see how endemicity might be too specific here, but the end of the pandemic is approaching and there should be a level 2 heading for this. I'm sure many sources will emerge regarding this and many may not use the word endemic. SmolBrane (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- When the pandemic indeed ends, maybe, if it's not part of this article (see: Spanish flu#End of the pandemic). But it hasn't ended, not yet. Not according to the WHO which we followed as the only entity with authority to declare it as such (pandemics being, by definition, global).
- When we talk about WP:CRYSTAL, this kind of speculation is what we're really meant to avoid. Endemic management methods, and the locations engaging in them, is a current event that seems to justify its own article. The end of this pandemic doesn't yet in my view. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Its not crystal to discuss notable references to the end of the pandemic. For example 'Biden said the pandemic is over' on Sept 15, 2022. But as you noted we would not state that in wikivoice. There is an increasing stream of policy changes and statements, and certainly we can cover them here and on other articles. But it does seem that this article serves to summarize other articles Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, where CRYSTAL would apply in my view is creating an article titled End of the COVID-19 Pandemic prior to said end. With the notable local changes in how the outbreak is managed and notable forecasting of the end mentioned in our current section. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- It won't take many countries' statements about the end of the pandemic to generate DUEness on the creation of an article. I'm hoping to pre-empt this to avoid a POV split(with endemic phase) and the related time wasting of editors. As I said further up the page, the WHO dragging their feet won't affect commentary in secondary sources--or indeed the comments by someone like Joe Biden. The WHO doesn't have veto power against all the other sources, broadly construed. SmolBrane (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- When all the other sources, broadly construed are in agreement, then we'll have something to deal with. Right now you're just arguing hypotheticals. It's too soon. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just saying--once the sources emerge, an article can be created and it likely won't be even nominated for deletion, like my creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19. We can be proactive here--the situation went from "end is in sight" - WHO to "the pandemic is over" - Biden awfully quickly. SmolBrane (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
We can be proactive here...
Not necessarily. See: WP:NOTLEADMisplaced Pages doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.
- I don't understand the concern that the endemic phase article would become a POV fork. If the article is clearly focused on local public policy and behavior, then it's entirely consistent with this article's deference to the authoritative declarations of the WHO regarding the international status of the disease. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is no such "all the sources" requirement. It only needs to meet WP:DUE and of course there is nothing in DUE that says all the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's a question of what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and to meet the threshold for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. And WP:MEDRS of course. It'll be obvious when it happens. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just saying--once the sources emerge, an article can be created and it likely won't be even nominated for deletion, like my creation of the Endemic phase of COVID-19. We can be proactive here--the situation went from "end is in sight" - WHO to "the pandemic is over" - Biden awfully quickly. SmolBrane (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- When all the other sources, broadly construed are in agreement, then we'll have something to deal with. Right now you're just arguing hypotheticals. It's too soon. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- It won't take many countries' statements about the end of the pandemic to generate DUEness on the creation of an article. I'm hoping to pre-empt this to avoid a POV split(with endemic phase) and the related time wasting of editors. As I said further up the page, the WHO dragging their feet won't affect commentary in secondary sources--or indeed the comments by someone like Joe Biden. The WHO doesn't have veto power against all the other sources, broadly construed. SmolBrane (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, where CRYSTAL would apply in my view is creating an article titled End of the COVID-19 Pandemic prior to said end. With the notable local changes in how the outbreak is managed and notable forecasting of the end mentioned in our current section. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Its not crystal to discuss notable references to the end of the pandemic. For example 'Biden said the pandemic is over' on Sept 15, 2022. But as you noted we would not state that in wikivoice. There is an increasing stream of policy changes and statements, and certainly we can cover them here and on other articles. But it does seem that this article serves to summarize other articles Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article? There's not much to say. Currently for COVID-19 it's a fringe notion and all we can say is that various people (mostly politicians) have asserted the pandemic "over", while actual scientists have snorted contemptuously at such fatuousness. If and when the WHO/CDC/etc declare the pandemic "over" we could just record that alongside reaction which was noteworthy. Having an article before that would be WP:PROFRINGE (/WP:CRYSTAL) almost by definition. My concern is any such article now would look like trying to bounce Misplaced Pages into a fringe stance while implying that the WHO is "dragging its feet"; this is completely arse-about-face – Misplaced Pages reflects the WP:BESTSOURCES on global health (i.e. the WHO) and puts minority/fringe/unreliable views in that context, not the other way round. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Do any other pandemics in history have an "end of ..." article?
Not that I can see. In addition to my mention of Spanish flu#End of the pandemic, it seems nearly every pandemic article simply covers the end within the article. Even one of the most notable examples I can think of is a subsection rather than its own article: Smallpox#Eradication, which is also covered in a sub-section of Eradication of infectious diseases. There appears to be no precedent for such an article, let alone a preemptive one. Unless SmolBrane can provide such precedent, or a much stronger argument for why it's absolutely necessary to abide by WP:PAGs, I don't see a reason to discuss further Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think the phrase 'end of the pandemic' is highly charged statement and results in these off-kilter debates, that are somewhat absurd. It is obvious that the pandemic is somehow ongoing in some apparently limited extent (at least in China the reaction to it is still full-on), so for us to project into the future about a potential end (end really means end) is clearly CRYSTAL (this was my earlier objection above), has largely been resolved. Thank you!. Next, is the endemic phase: that appears to maybe be emerging. Very qualified statement I just made. However, it is clearly due to include the notable statements (ideally summarized and not quoted) comprised of notable people stating it is now endemic or theorizing it might be endemic in the future. We also have a couple of editors here that appear to be in the 'die on this hill' mentality to keep this article important. Some of us edit articles and love it when our article is important and the endemic phase of this article tends to write off this one time super-important article to the annuls of history. Let's keep in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and mostly covers the past, and does an amazing job at it. All the reverts on any type of edit (such as the reverts to correct crystal issues) is too much. It is no more than WP:SQS and all the citing of MEDRS ad nauseam is a bit absurd at this point in time, as this article covers the pandemic (that mostly can be described in the past tense at this point in time) and not the disease (which may still exist and all projections seem to indicate it will exist forever, that is how viruses work). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a level 4 vital article and likely always to be "important", even historically. Editors working against this would be a problem. Application of relevant sourcing standards (e.g. WP:MEDRS) cannot be wished away. Please also remember this is WP:NOTAFORUM so personal musing on the state of the pandemic is unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- You confirmed my point exactly by citing various policies to support your belief that this article will "always" be important. Good job. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- What even is your point? Are you saying articles on pandemics are not important? Are you also "against" the importance of Spanish flu (also a level 4 vital article)? Big topics make for important articles. Bon courage (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- You confirmed my point exactly by citing various policies to support your belief that this article will "always" be important. Good job. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf:
It is no more than WP:SQS and all the citing of MEDRS ad nauseam is a bit absurd at this point in time, as this article covers the pandemic (that mostly can be described in the past tense at this point in time) and not the disease (which may still exist and all projections seem to indicate it will exist forever, that is how viruses work).
It's worth the reminder that "Population data and epidemiology" are WP:BMI that require WP:MEDRS sources, which would seem to include the status of a disease outbreak as pandemic or not. This is part of thesubstantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions
that are being made, which by definition mean this isn't a status-quo stonewall. Please drop the WP:STICK. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)- History is not BMI. We are not talking about population data or epidemiology that you put in bold for additional weight. Both of those terms are defined in BMI to make it easier the editor to understand how BMI is defined. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any point to this? A change to make to the actual article. If not I suggest closing. The WP:BMI in this article will always require WP:MEDRS and there will be a metric fuckton of it, so what is the issue? Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you agree we use the definitions in WP:BMI. Speculation about future population data and epidemiology (
the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined population
) of the outbreak is not history. WP:BMI also has a clear definition of what non-biomedical history is, including the important caveat thatStatements that could still have medical relevance... are still biomedical
. So that should settle it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- History is not BMI. We are not talking about population data or epidemiology that you put in bold for additional weight. Both of those terms are defined in BMI to make it easier the editor to understand how BMI is defined. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
the end of the pandemic is approaching and there should be a level 2 heading for this
You all are debating whether the end of the pandemic is indeed approaching or not, but even if we were to assume it is, I object to the assumption that we should create a level-2 section for it. The end of a pandemic is the end part of its history, and as such should be part of the history section. {{u|Sdkb}} 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)- It is "approaching" (unless one believes that it's an eternal pandemic, which is a WP:FRINGE view I've not come across). Once it happens the whole pandemic will be "historical" so I don't think there would be a History section. Again, articles on pandemics past are useful for inspiration ... Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Spanish flu § History. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- A good example of it done wrong IMO (timeline should be lvl 2 and the origins stuff is not "history"). Also see Great Plague of London. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Spanish flu § History. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is "approaching" (unless one believes that it's an eternal pandemic, which is a WP:FRINGE view I've not come across). Once it happens the whole pandemic will be "historical" so I don't think there would be a History section. Again, articles on pandemics past are useful for inspiration ... Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BU Qi Xue (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by BU Qi Xue (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Pandemic vs. Endemic
Is Covid still in Pandemic stage or has it reached endemic stage? For most of the 19tth Century, TB was considered a pandemic, but it became so common, accepted and treatable with vaccine that by the 20th Century it was considered an endemic. Thus it cannot be listed in the list of deadliest Pandemics here with even with billions dead and millions still dying every year form it: . The Black Death bubonic Pandemic existed in the 14th Century, but while the plague is over bubonic plague disease still exists as an endemic. Covid is still there much like Bubonic Plague, TB, HIV, Measle, and so on, its infectious and deadly, but it is also treatable like the others and had a vaccine, and people are recovering. Many sources are now also referring to it as an endemic that people have to live with just like past pandemics that eventually became endemics: , . So do we have to wait till WHO announces it as an endemic? When past pandemics happened, like the Buonic Plague, WHO's announcement didn't matter as it didn't exist then. I have no objection if it stays as a pandemic, it is all fine, but all I am asking is when can it be considered an endemic. Is it after WHO's declaration? if so I am fine with it, but if any other criteria exists, please specify them here. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus seems to be wait for a WHO recategorization, as they're essentially the only global reliable source on the topic. Alongside noting that some locations consider it endemic, which doesn't necessarily change the global status of pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- yes, there several countries (governments) that now consider it endemic Mexico, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam. or poised like Indonesia --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
- "Mexico says coronavirus now endemic, not pandemic". ABC News.
- "Govt readies shift to endemic phase". The Manila Times. 12 February 2022.
- "Spain to move from treating COVID-19 as a pandemic to an endemic illness". Euronews. 18 January 2022. Retrieved 23 June 2022.
- "Asia's COVID success stories become the world's worst hot spots – Nikkei Asia". Asia.nikkei.com. 30 March 2022. Retrieved 23 June 2022.
- "Indonesia Posed to Reach COVID-19 Endemic Stage: IDI". MSN (in Indonesian). Retrieved 20 September 2022.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles. By way of background I've reviewed something in the range 75 - 100 articles including some prominent, complex and popular articles, amongst these China, Female genital mutilation, and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I will take my time for this complex and controversial topic and I realise this is GA3 so I will be expecting changes based on what has been written in the GA2 review. I will spend a few days examining this article carefully before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- I want to thank you for your experience and knowledge on this and similar subjects. I'd like to make clear whatever amount of edits, adjustments, additional references or for that matter anything you suggest will be answered in a prompt manner, I want to extend to you my thanks for your valuable time, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- I should add that this article has been copyedited by the guild, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- this article has suffered from a history of censorship, the primarily due to false claims of MEDRS applicability to historical facts. This issue is documented on these talk pages. Until this balance issue can be resolved GA shouldn't be considered. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Comments
Preliminary assessment
I must admit this article is a big article to review. It's 300 kb in size and has > 500 references and has 46 talk pages. IT was at one point one of the 50th most viewed articles here and so to summarise, I anticipate many aspects of the article are carefully thought out, sourced or worded.
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar correct but it could be more concise |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I think so |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | In the main, the references seem to be from reliable sources presented in a standard way. I appreciate the difference between biomedical and historiographical information and take this into account. However, I'll cast a closer eye at this later in the review. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See above |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Seems to represent a standard and encyclopedic position on the presented material |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Despite all the attribution tags on the talk page, I can't see any relating to COVID-19, yet the wording seems very similar. Was there any copying in either direction? |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I'm leaning towards a 'no' for this aspect. See my comments below. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | At the moment leaning towards a 'no'. See my comments below. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See comments below |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Surprisingly, does seem to be quite stable. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | I will check this later in the review |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | In the main, the images are relevant and captions. Will examine this in depth later |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Overall comments
- It's clear that a lot of effort has gone into this humungous article and I expect many sections are the result of careful concensus over the last few years. Many thanks to all the contributors and I recognise your efforts
- I have found it easiest in these complex reviews to make sure I am firmly reviewing against the six GA criteria above
- I also have to answer before I delve into things, as a review, can this article become a GA whilst the pandemic is active? I think so. So long as an article about a current topic isn't changing rapidly day by day (i.e. passes the stability criteria), I think it's possible. In particular when reviewing, I think it's possible to have an article that represents an excellent encyclopedic synopsis of a current event up until the present moment. The GA can be passed with the expectation that it may not be a GA in six months or even a year if things change, however at the time of the review I still think this is possible.
- I do not however think this particular article meets GA criteria and although I think it can be improved to meet those, I don't think it will be in a timeframe that is suitable to put the review on hold. Also (this might be a bit controversial), I am not certain that it would be a complete improvement for this article to be changed in a way that would get it there. I mean in particular that GA nomination reflects an article's encyclopedic nature however this current article, I think, serves a few masters - e.g. it is an extremely highly viewed article so has some content (I think) so that lazy readers don't change articles, it wants to be easy to read and accessible for readers at an approachable reading level and perhaps personally engaging (hence the scattered quotes), and provides some instructional and informative advice that may have helped some of the millions of readers yet am not sure would be the typical phrasing that I would expect in a GA.
- Some specific contents
- Some parts of this are done, I think, particularly well. I think in particular elements of the worldwide impact section, and the images, give a good summary of the global impact of the pandemic.
- Regarding scope: the page is very long (300kb). I compared the articles China (361kg), World War 2 (250kb) and Life (161kb) - all broad topics - for comparison and put their sizes here. Also important, I think, is that just reading the article it feels long to read and I think that's because it's not concise enough and some elements are semi duplicated. Whereas the three articles above are quite interesting to read without fatigue.
- I think one reason is the section on the virus itself is very long. The pandemic article should be about the pandemic and I feel that the information on the disease should actually be placed on the COVID-19 article.
- Well this was done to give the reader some background on the virus that is causing the pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think one reason is the section on the virus itself is very long. The pandemic article should be about the pandemic and I feel that the information on the disease should actually be placed on the COVID-19 article.
- Focus: the article has a scattershot focus which I think would make it a good magazine article but is sometimes a bit contextualless as to why particular examples are mentioned. Some randomly extracted ones:
- "Singapore provided financial support, quarantined, and imposed large fines for those who broke quarantine" (did this not occur in many countries...?), "In February 2022, the Icelandic Ministry of Health lifted all restrictions and adopted a herd immunity approach" (the article later says the disease is endemic in many countries, I'm not sure how this is in fact any difference), "Many such measures were criticised as "hygiene theatre" by Derek Thompson, a staff writer at The Atlantic" (not sure why this is notable enough to include, was Derek Thompson an extremely notable COVID-19 pandemic person?), "The head of cardiology at the University of Arizona said, "My worry is some of these people are dying at home because they're too scared to go to the hospital." (why is this notable enough to include in this article? is this person's feelings representative of an issue notable enough to mention, as stated by a reputable source? Is it undue prominence to include this sort of quote?)
- Yes the article, like in any other under review, can have certain text adjusted. I believe the usual hold given to GA nominations should have been offered...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Singapore provided financial support, quarantined, and imposed large fines for those who broke quarantine" (did this not occur in many countries...?), "In February 2022, the Icelandic Ministry of Health lifted all restrictions and adopted a herd immunity approach" (the article later says the disease is endemic in many countries, I'm not sure how this is in fact any difference), "Many such measures were criticised as "hygiene theatre" by Derek Thompson, a staff writer at The Atlantic" (not sure why this is notable enough to include, was Derek Thompson an extremely notable COVID-19 pandemic person?), "The head of cardiology at the University of Arizona said, "My worry is some of these people are dying at home because they're too scared to go to the hospital." (why is this notable enough to include in this article? is this person's feelings representative of an issue notable enough to mention, as stated by a reputable source? Is it undue prominence to include this sort of quote?)
- Also regarding focus: for better or worse, the article is very heavy with 2019 and 2020 content, which, gosh, feels like an entire epoch ago in history. It is hard to crystalise or substantiate but I do think that this puts lots of weight on initial issues in the early days of the pandemic (where is it from, how to prevent it, the huge day to day impact of quarantine) and covers some of the more recent issues less e.g. the new strains and the change in the symptoms they are causing, the change to endemic nature, the reopening of the world, it is the lingering economic, social isolation, supply shortages and geopolitical impacts that are the current ongoing impacts of the pandemic. I don't think it is right for me to day how this issue should be fixed as that's probably quite complex, only that I identify it as a barrier to this GA review
- Yes 2019, 2020 have more text because,at this point, this is how the world initially dealt with the pandemic, so it needed more emphasis however some of what you have indicated (not all) could be emphasized in the present, yet another example of an adjustment that would have benefited from a hold ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding focus: some sections feel in fact too small - particularly regarding misinformation and transition to endemic.
- Doing so would have made the article even larger, though I suspect the latter will eventually have more text added as warranted by different countries endemic status--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have done a cursory review of recent scholarly and conventional sources regarding endemic phase and I haven't found anything due that isn't already covered. It may actually be appropriate to collapse the recent decisions by Indonesia and South Korea into the preceding paragraph--that is to say they might be better added to the list accompanying the other countries that have/are transitioning to endemic phase even though that would make the section more brief contrary to the review. I agree with Ozzie that more endemic commentary should be forthcoming. SmolBrane (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Neutrality --> I do agree with the commenter on this review. that this article seems to dwell a fair bit on the pandemic from a US point of view by both the amount of mentions of the US, and also the topics that are addressed which I think need to be more neutral and global. Examples: "Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to stay home except" (CDC advice is not relevant to a worldwide audience), "On 23 April 2020, NASA reported building, in 37 days, a ventilator which is undergoing further testing" (again, not sure why this is relevant or worthy of mention). "Hundreds of millions of jobs were lost. including more than 40 million Americans. According to a report by Yelp, about 60% of US businesses that closed will stay shut permanently." (not sure why the US gets more mention than other economies and also not sure how to reconcile 60%... "permanently" with the low current unemployment rates
- Per pure numbers the U.S. has the most fatalities and cases, logic dictates it is going to be mentioned more (while a world view, of course is what the article should always indicate)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the ventilator. I don't think reported deaths is a good metric, given issues with reporting in the global south. That said, I think there are only a few instances of trivia that need removing, like the above, to get a reasonable balance + a bit added to the Africa section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Have done that edit as well as many other edits based on suggestions in this review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Neutrality --> the writing does at times stray into an instructive style (as above) which is not really an encyclopedic description of the COVID-19 pandemic, which would instead be something like "In March, the CDC had changed / reiterated advice to X". Also, the section on Africa in the worldwide coverage section feels smaller compared with its counterparts
- The section on Africa can easily be expanded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
In summary, I have identified some systemic and structural issues with this article that mean it does not meet the GA criteria at present. To get close to GA criteria I think the article needs a very thorough review of prose, needs to be more concise, and needs to be more recent. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for your review I have gone over the suggestions above, I am of the opinion the standard 7 day hold would have made a difference,
- "Putting the article on hold-If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold by doing the following..."
- (on the above rate column you indicated neutral or pass in 9 times- I'm certain that those 3 that indicate fail could be handled in a 7 day hold)
- I am not entirely clear what this means ..."although I think it can be improved to meet those, I don't think it will be in a timeframe that is suitable to put the review on hold. Also (this might be a bit controversial), I am not certain that it would be a complete improvement for this article to be changed in a way that would get it there."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. On hold is intended for a 7 day period and I don't think that's suitable for my commentary. In my experience we'd probably have a detailed discussion which would stretch for several weeks, either by me indicating specific sentences or areas and/or with larger structural changes. In the event of detailed discussions, this would stretch over the 7 day duration, and structural changes should not in my opinion be made without some discussion with the other viewers / contributors to this article. Please don't see this as a failure on your or anyone else's part, it just that I don't think this article is ready for GA status. Rome wasn't built in a day and there is no rush to nominate or pass this article; I think it's better that it's done right, and that includes understanding this is a long, complex article with multiple parties that are likely to want to respond to changes along the way.
- I'm happy if you'd like to reverse the closure and put this article on hold and get a second opinion, which, if it agrees in general part with the current structure, depth and scope (as compared with my suggestions) I would contribute to by being a bit more specific regarding wording and readability as well as in that case conduct the required review of images and sources. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I thank you for your offer...after having discussed your reply with a fellow editor, I believe it would be best to go over the article once again as there seems to be yet another surge in Europe (one would have to wait to see how/if this surge reaches North America, as well as other parts of the world) therefore, of course incorporate its effects into the current version of the article. I thank you for the time you have invested in your review, and therefore accept (at this point) your result. Depending on the surge I will try again in about a month....Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Countries given coverage in the political impact section
Some of the countries given coverage in the political impact section, such as Italy, seem to be a holdover from the pandemic's early days and/or reflective of systemic bias.
I continue to feel that, overall, this article suffers from geographic systemic bias, both in the national responses section (e.g. for North America, we have a paragraph on Canada, pop. 38M, but not Mexico, pop. 128M and with a higher per capita death rate) and more generally (e.g. note the countries included in the charts). {{u|Sdkb}} 07:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- The english speaking country bias is common in english wikipedia (not saying it is right). Please suggest what you propose. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the GA review is a good time to address this, and any stale WP:RECENTISM/WP:10YT is probably a good target as well. On a quick look of the national sections, I suspect we are talking more about a scalpel than a sledgehammer, room for tweaks rather than entire paragraphs needing to be deleted. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we take a more systematic approach to deciding how to give different regions due weight. The first step of that would be agreeing on which factors are relevant — population? cases? deaths? unusual circumstances? etc. — and then which countries should be allocated space based on those factors. We tried this early on — see current consensus item #5 — but at that point things were changing so much that it became outdated quickly and no one enforced it or went through the proper channels to modify it. I think there's better potential to succeed now that the situation is more stable. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree w/ Bakkster Man--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we take a more systematic approach to deciding how to give different regions due weight. The first step of that would be agreeing on which factors are relevant — population? cases? deaths? unusual circumstances? etc. — and then which countries should be allocated space based on those factors. We tried this early on — see current consensus item #5 — but at that point things were changing so much that it became outdated quickly and no one enforced it or went through the proper channels to modify it. I think there's better potential to succeed now that the situation is more stable. {{u|Sdkb}} 18:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the GA review is a good time to address this, and any stale WP:RECENTISM/WP:10YT is probably a good target as well. On a quick look of the national sections, I suspect we are talking more about a scalpel than a sledgehammer, room for tweaks rather than entire paragraphs needing to be deleted. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Vaccine section
I suggest that the section on vaccines should include a sentence or two about the introduction of vaccines against variants, such as the bivalent (original + omicron) ones now in use in the US and Canada. To facilitate this change, it might be better if the section was also moved to a later position in the higher-level section containing it, after the section on variants. (Please make any comments here; don't write to this IP address.) --174.89.144.126 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- as the GA process goes along, we will see what is needed, thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- B-Class COVID-19 articles
- Top-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- B-Class pulmonology articles
- Low-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class virus articles
- Top-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class 2010s articles
- High-importance 2010s articles
- WikiProject 2010s articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists