Talk:Weekly Epidemiological Record
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Cwmhiraeth in topic Did you know nomination
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weekly Epidemiological Record article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | A fact from Weekly Epidemiological Record appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that during efforts to eradicate smallpox between 1968 and 1979, the World Health Organization's WER allowed frontline workers to appraise their own work and compare it with others? the WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record to publish clear and concise country-by-country updates on smallpox incidence, special problems and solutions: fieldworkers could see how they were doing compared with other states and countries [1]
- ALT1:... that the World Health Organization's Weekly Epidemiological Record reports on neglected tropical diseases? detailed data produced by WHO in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (WER) for all the NTDs in a systematic way [2]
- ALT2:... that the
- Reviewed: Anna Hájková
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I prefer ALT1 - but it took me a click to realise neglected tropical diseases were 'a thing' - I wonder if adding (NTDs) at the end of hook, makes that clearer? Will leave for promoter to decide. Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is cited, a qpq is done, and I can't see any problems with neutrality. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)