Talk:2008 United States salmonellosis outbreak

Stale
This article was written largely by a single editor from the perspective of 2008, at which time the outbreak was ongoing and many of the facts were unknown. I've changed a few verb tenses, but in general this is a historical event that should be written about in the past tense. Further, speculation as to causes, rates, etc., is not very pertinent - we need sourced facts on what the conclusions are. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Original Research?
Hi folks! This sentence in the Salmonella section appears to me to be a bit of original research? Thoughts? Perhaps there is a published estimate somewhere?
 * "The CDC maintains that "it is likely many more illnesses have occurred than those reported." If applying a previous CDC estimated ratio of non-reported salmonellosis cases to reported cases (38.6:1), one would arrive at an estimated 52,826 illnesses from this outbreak, and 173 estimated cases per million throughout the United States.


 * The CDC has cautioned that in a widely publicized outbreak, the multiplier for estimated illnesses may be smaller; they stated that an outbreak's publicity may prompt more sick people to go to their physicians and give stool samples for Salmonella testing. The CDC also estimates that there are around double the number of Salmonella hospitalizations than the number reported. In this case, that would be an estimated 514 hospitalizations from the current outbreak."

Rewrite/Heavy Changes
Hey everyone! Ok, so I've been going through and changing a lot of this article. Basically it appears that it was written in late July 2008 on the tail-end of the outbreak. So everything is written in a very speculative tone and the information is outdated. Also many of the citations are dead links. So I'm removing a lot of information. Justifications: I hate to be a Scrooge and cut out tons of stuff, so if you believe some of these things are useful for the article, please let me know and I'd be more than happy to work with you to get it back in! Anyway, another set of eyes and some more opinions would be appreciated. Let me know what you think. Thanks!!Ajpolino (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There were a few bits that were unsourced/sourced to a personal blog/speculative (and didn't turn out to be true)
 * No longer relevant (this goes along with speculative. For instance there was a bit about the prospective locations contamination may have come from. Now the investigation is over so we know as much as we are going to know about that).
 * The Traceback Section - This was mostly quotes from the FDA combined with information which is now covered in the Contamination Source section.
 * The Controversy Section - Haven't looked at it too hard yet, but it looks like it's mostly criticism from a produce-industry blog (I know pretty much nothing about this, so if James Prevor and Produce Business are super-notable for some reason, please correct me), and some criticisms which didn't pan out or don't stand up to scrutiny (e.g. that the outbreak could be caused by chicken, which we would've seen in the case-control studies if it were true). So I may end up removing most or all of it.

Salmonella outbreak
The lead to this topic was very straight forward and told good information without too much detail. It gave direct information for those who would only want to read a sentence but also had more in depth as the paragraph went on. The article talks only about the subject and in as much detail as it could. First, it breaks down where the salmonella outbreak was taking place and told the details of what specific state had the most people infected. The article was not missing any information but could have gone more in debt with the sickness that were taking place. Such as what is salmonella, what were the symptoms, and if there were for sure any fatalities from the outbreak in 2008. The word “may” was used when explaining the two death that did or did not take place. The article is very neutral not having biases, rather just giving information of where the outbreak started and how it spread to so many. They claims of were the outbreak started were very straightforward and did not suspect it to come from anywhere else. There are multiple tests taken to confirm these claims. The viewpoints of those infected by the salmonella outbreak may could have been useful during this article. Again, just to talk about the situation and the effects that were happening to them. Individuals that were contaminated could have given places and locations of where the illness was contracted and what they were consuming. Overall, it was easy to read while getting good information out of it. The references that were used were viable and trustworthy sources. The sections and pictures that were used during this article were very useful in terms of finding and understanding the information. The images also follow WIKIs rules and have helpful captions under the, relating the the paragraph next to them. Overall, this article was very informative and helpful. It had detail were it was needed but straight to the point. Tbbarwelk (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)