Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Shibbolethink (talk · contribs) 16:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) The article lacks any banners or inline tags which would indicate ongoing disagreement or dispute (e.g. cleanup, POV, unreferenced, citation needed, etc). I see 3 prior nominations and reviews, and I will be examining these closely. I myself am relatively new to the GA review process, but I am very familiar with the GA criteria and the topic of the article, as a PhD virologist very interested in the pandemic as a topic. But if I make any procedural mistakes or missteps, don't hesitate to let me know! I'll be doing this over the course of a week few weeks (sorry about that) or so, as this is a large article with great importance to the project! It is clearly, in my eyes, in good shape with an initial read-through and deserving of a full review. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (edited 16:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC))


 * Note-As a matter of continuation until the pandemic fizzles out, the infobox image will continue to be updated, as I have spoken with  JackintheBox who usually takes care of this. To be clear, this is an ongoing update/change which has been done before (per the link given to commons) and will continue until the last cases/death numbers come in from this pandemic, irrespective if that means a few months or another year, thank you, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done (and will continue until its over) Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note the article lacks NPOV and relies excessively on WHO. The article relies heavily on MEDRS censorship of historical facts (despite that historical attributes are not applicable to MEDRS). It also contains out of date local consensus findings that are not suitable for GA. The article needs a lot of work before GA, GA should be used for actual GA articles and not POV pieces. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The article has been copy-edited by the GoCE most recently on 25 December 2021
 * In my own thorough review sentence-by-sentence, I note only minor issues with respect to spelling, grammar, or adherence to summary-style. I find the prose to be concise and clearly written. I see a number of sentences have been improved and made more concise since the GA3. I found just a few (less than 10) sentences which would benefit from re-writes to benefit clarity, a fact I think is also true of many GAs. To the article's credit, the main contributor (Ozzie) has been very responsive throughout all of these suggestions.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article complies with the MOS for lead sections, layout, and words to watch. This was noted also during the GA3.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * The article contains an extensive list of well-formatted references, in accordance with our layout style guide linked above. Any references which were previously missing authors (an amount consistent with most articles) have been corrected.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * All statements which could reasonably be challenged have a verifiable citation to a reliable source, including all medical statements which are sourced to a WP:MEDRS. All unreliable sources (~only 2 that I could see) have been removed. All WP:PRIMARY citations have been backed up by secondary ones where feasible. Scholarly sources have been prioritized per WP:SOURCETYPES. All quotations, statistics, and published opinions have been directly cited to their sources and attributed where necessary. There were some minor corrections to be made, but on the order of what is usual, these are absolutely a reasonable amount and easily meet the GA criteria. This was a section of contention during the GA3, which noted the over-prevalence of citations to 2020 and 2019. I believe from my careful review, this has been fixed to a large extent. Virtually none of the references are now to 2019 material. Many (if not the majority) are still from 2020, but have been updated with additional references to 2021 and 2022 material. Where not done, the content has not changed to a large extent and does not require updates as historiographic in style. I think the amount of improvements here easily pass the GA criteria in that regard. Especially given the largely historiographic nature of this article.
 * c. (OR):
 * I have checked a subset of ~30% of the citations and they verify the content. I see no obvious original research, and we have removed any citations which are clearly PRIMARY and would lead to original research concerns, replacing with secondary RSes. This was not a concern in the prior GA3.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I did not see any direct copied material in those checks for NOR, during which I manually Ctrl-F'd for unique key phrasing. All quotations were properly attributed. I also checked for copyvios with some automated tools (turnitin, Earwig - ) and did not find any suspicious passages. I saw this was a point of contention with the GA3, but did not see similar issues in my review, and see many of those attributions have been fixed or removed entirely in the time since.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * I was leaning towards a "no" or "unclear" on this, until I read the precise GA criteria. My instinct was to point out the many sections which are quite short, even with the additions Ozzie and I worked on. These are not very detailed, but they do cover the most important points. Especially the subsections of and  which are quite short. This was also a criticism mentioned in the GA3. But then I read what the GA criteria (#3) actually says: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. We don't need to be comprehensive. We only need to cover the most important salient points of the topic. And this article definitely does that. Especially with the few additions (<5) that I suggested and Ozzie implemented (see below). I cannot think of any major point about the pandemic that is not at least mentioned with 1 or 2 sentences in this article. And any more depth in some of those topics might run afoul of 3b (no excessive detail). This is not meant to be a comprehensive coverage of this topic, and indeed to do so would easily lengthen the article beyond all reason (it's already 360kb). This is a major event that happened in human history, and it deserves a long article. But it should break off those larger issues into smaller chunks in daughter articles (which it does!) I see no reasonable argument why this should not be a "yes" and have thus marked it so.
 * b. (focused):
 * See 3a. I see many sections which are very focused! Almost too focused! But I could not conceive of any major additions beyond what I have suggested already and which were already implemented by Ozzie below. I do not think it goes into unnecessary detail. This was one of the major GA3 criticisms, that the article went into too much depth about the virus itself. But I see major changes have occurred since, and I find the introduction and first few sections to be heavily improved compared to Fall 2022. These are tight prose, accomplishing excellent summary style, without meandering. I suggested the removal of a few passages (<5) and Ozzie has implemented those removals handily with aplomb. Each section (or most) refers to a subsection for greater detail, and then covers only the most DUE points. With those and the aforementioned changes since Fall 2022, I think this criteria is easily met. I see many less focussed GAs out there, and this ranks among the best I've read.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * In my own thorough review of the text, I believe it now provides DUE and proportional weight to all relevant perspectives present in our highest quality reliable sources (e.g. scholarship, medical/professional guidelines, highly trusted news sources, etc.) I see that this has been a contentious point on the talk page in the past (and in the GA3), with regards to heavy reliance on the WHO, CDC, and other medical sources for ostensibly non-medical historiographic topics. This was something I paid particularly close attention to in my own review, and requested independent and non-medical sourcing where applicable. I also requested a few edits to wording where I believe it relied too heavily on a US-centric or WHO-centric perspective, providing high quality scholarship from academic review articles to help make this more compliant with the heart of our NPOV policy (especially WP:BESTSOURCES). I think in total it was probably 10-15 changes, and these were implemented without much issue. I think these edits solve many if not all of those concerns while staying true to summary-style writing in such a high-level broad-topic article. Particularly the requirement to "describe disputes" without engaging in them. See, for example,, where we now describe the impact of religious practices, both positive and negative, on the experience of the pandemic for religious and non-religous persons. These statements are based on the highest quality narrative and systematic reviews published in topic-relevant expert-edited scholarly journals. These are how we determine the "POV" of Wikipedia's voice. And I believe we do so fairly and proportionally. Many contentious passages (e.g. "controversies about the origins of the virus") have been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page, and have settled on consensus-driven wording that has remained relatively stable for months. This is Wikipedia working at its best, in my humble opinion. I believe this article meets the NPOV criteria, even if more improvements will be made as time goes on. GAs are not frozen in stone, they are simply held as good examples.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * This, I think, is the most salient place where the answer could be "no" or "maybe?". But I also think this article is likely not going to be at the same level of stability as the best possible GAs for many years. And that is okay. It was, until very recently, an ongoing event with massive effects on basically every member of this planet. One can expect some mild instability. There are often disagreements on the talk page. But, I think overall, it is as stable as one could hope at this point in time, when multiple countries are setting back or reducing their restrictions, and many established authorities are transitioning to "endemic" language. I also note that the page is much more stable now than it was at the time of the GA3. There will continue to be edits and discussions on this page for many years to come, as such things become more established. But I think, overall, this does not get in the way of me agreeing with the GA nomination. Most, if not 99%, of these changes are made "in good faith" efforts to improve with more accurate detail, which does not qualify for this assessment. There are very few edit wars, proposals to large-scale rewrite, etc. At most it is small-scale quibbling over wording. And those should continue, even if it becomes a GA. I don't think this stands in the way of the article becoming a GA, given the relative stability, and the overall fact that most such edits do not fall afoul of this criteria.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * I went image-by-image and checked the license and use rationales. To my surprise, I don't think a single file on this page is licensed with anything other than CC or was not already in the public domain. I consider this a massive achievement for an article of this stature, given the long and grueling fight to acquire adequate images on wikipedia without such restrictions. I also could not think of a single image I would add which would have had such restrictions. Bravo on that, Wikipedia editors here. You should be proud.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I went caption-by-caption and suggested a few edits where I felt it was appropriate (see below, <5 such edits). These were succinct, readable, and easily explained what the image depicted. I otherwise saw no issues and thus mark this as a "pass".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * See the detailed rationales above. I think this handily meets GA criteria, even if one or two are marginal (5 in particular), they are still a "yes" in my assessment.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * I went image-by-image and checked the license and use rationales. To my surprise, I don't think a single file on this page is licensed with anything other than CC or was not already in the public domain. I consider this a massive achievement for an article of this stature, given the long and grueling fight to acquire adequate images on wikipedia without such restrictions. I also could not think of a single image I would add which would have had such restrictions. Bravo on that, Wikipedia editors here. You should be proud.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I went caption-by-caption and suggested a few edits where I felt it was appropriate (see below, <5 such edits). These were succinct, readable, and easily explained what the image depicted. I otherwise saw no issues and thus mark this as a "pass".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * See the detailed rationales above. I think this handily meets GA criteria, even if one or two are marginal (5 in particular), they are still a "yes" in my assessment.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * See the detailed rationales above. I think this handily meets GA criteria, even if one or two are marginal (5 in particular), they are still a "yes" in my assessment.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

References/Citations

 * @Ozzie10aaaa Reference 6 is a dead link, without an archive. I think the first use of the ref is likely unnecessary, as there is already another ref (ref 7, see below). I see the value of having it in the list for the second use  but I think these refs  would be just as valuable, but also live/verifiable. I prefer the European one (first in that list) the most, as it is very comprehensive with well-cited evidence. Any of these may need to be archived.Reference 7  URL is no longer accurate, though. Here's the permalink you can replace it with . Should probably also add the date.Thanks! Will add more below as I find them —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * reference has been added (removed other ref) (will continue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * added European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (answered your question below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Q: can I just edit these things, or is that poor form if I'm doing the GA review? Seems dumb to just drop them here when it would be just as fast to fix them myself. My understanding of the review guidelines seems to suggest there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, per se. And I'm happy to do that since these are such minor things. As long as there aren't too many, these spot fixes shouldn't impact the review overall. I suppose what this reply is asking is, "is that okay with you?" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem (however, should it be too much or you just want me to do my fair part, I will)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ozzie10aaaa Ref 100 ("Cases, Data, and Surveillance") is also a dead link with no archive. It verifies that the D614G mutation is present in many VoC. Which it is! But the other sources in that citation don't really verify the statement about D614G ("Several variants have been named by WHO and labelled as a variant of concern (VoC) or a variant of interest (VoI). They share the more infectious D614G mutation") but this one from NYT does: (currently also used as ref 260 in the next sentence). I would also either remove ref 101 (citelink) or replace it with the more comprehensive, updated, and useful permalink for Europa: . I would remove ref 102 (citelink) as it doesn't add much and doesn't verify those sentences it's after. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For Ref 199 I would add the publication or post date (2019-12-30). If it's a web cite right now (didn't check) then I would convert to News or Journal cite templates, because the date etc of a widespread newsletter like this is important. It would be verifiable based on the date or the archive # ([20191230.6864153]) alone. Could, for example, put it as a Journal cite and then put the date as the date and the archive # as the issue #.I say this as someone who has received every promed mail of the last 10 years  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Shibbolethink, again should you need me to do anything let me know (I'll be online today/almost all day ) thank you Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the section needs some minor work. It fails to describe the fact that the WHO has downgraded all previously recognized "VoC" as now "previously circulating variants". So now, as of May 25 2023, there actually are no variants of concern. There are only "Variants of interest" and "variants under monitoring". I don't think you need to get into all those subclassifications, but I think you could say "Many of these variants have shared They share the more infectious D614G." and add " As of May 2023, the WHO had downgraded all variants of concern to "previously circulating as these were no longer detected in new infections. " or something like that. You can then cite the 25 May 2023 WHO report and the 16 March statement from WHO to verify that.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And re: the table, one of the following probably needs to happen:
 * A) make the title "Variants of Concern (past and present)", and then remove the VoIs. Update it to comport with if there are any missing etc. (least onerous)
 * This is the best choice, (done)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (However did you want me to add those listed at ...)
 * However did you want me to add those listed at [22 ] Hmm let me see, I think what you can do is say (and sub-variants BA.1 - BA.5) in the omicron "lineage" box. Or the Or something like that. Nothing to acknowledge those is going to be elegant since it makes that box bigger. You could put these as a separate row right below Omicron I guess. And put "various" for detected... It's hard because the WHO and ECDC acknowledged these as all separate VoCs, but it would be crazy to add 5 more omicrons to that list. I do think we should acknowledge them somehow, either in the text or the table. You could also put "Sub-lineages of the Omicron variant (BA.1 - BA.5) were considered separate variants of concern by the WHO until they were downgraded as no longer widely circulating in March 2023. (cite the march statement)." in the text... I leave it totally up to you, but there are a few options. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done (added text)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * B) change the title of the table to "Previous and current variants" and note which are still current in an additional column, and add the new VoIs (There are I think 4 total VoIs now) (most onerous)
 * C) remove the table altogether (I think a tragedy, though). We need this table imo because the greek names etc. are important and obviously very widely reported. But we need to strike a balance between updating this all the time (untenable) and just keeping it the relevant stuff (probably just VoCs, and thus all past variants).
 * They actually did this VoC reclassification/downgrade starting with the March 2023 report, but it is still true now today in May. Not sure how you want to play that distinction but the above is how I would do it. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Shibbole, you may want to cut and paste all this to the GA4 subpage. Shibbole, you may also want to avoid making direct edits to the article and leave a bulleted list for Ozzie instead. These are the norms typically followed at GA. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * will do! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ozzie10aaaa: (there are also minor grammar things mixed in here that I only noticed on my second reading)
 * Ref 105 and 103 are identical, should be concatenated into one refname.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 106 is not a reliable source and does not verify the content it's attached to (People with the same infection may have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhoea). These sources could be used instead, as WP:MEDRS:
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 108 is not a MEDRS, is currently attached to MEDRS content, and should be removed.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The grammar of The standard methods of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 are nucleic acid tests, in is weird. I think it should be reworded to: The standard method of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 is a nucleic acid test, (minor to moderate)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 125 is dead, and probably not ideal to use two CDC sources for this, when we do have others. Could replace with from WHO or  from European CDC.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar situation to the above with refs 126 and 127 in except both are still archived. it's still a very US-centric perspective, though.
 * I would change Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by healthcare authorities... I would then replace ref 126 (which is not a great MEDRS as a non-technical and broadly outdated site) with (from CDC, but a better MEDRS) and then also replace ref 127 with this from ECDC and this from Public Health England (just to have a slightly more global perspective).
 * done (all)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, the wording of The initial focus of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was on preventing symptomatic, often severe illness is a lil weird. I would change to: The initial focus of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was on preventing symptomatic and severe illness. (minor)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, the sentences As of late-December 2021, more than 4.49 billion people had received one or more doses (8+ billion in total) in over 197 countries. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was the most widely used could be updated as both refs 132 and 133 have been updated in the years since 2021. The 132 ref was updated in March 2023! The basic ideas there are still true, though, AstraZenica is still the largest group.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section (Vaccines), the sentence On 8 November 2022, Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine booster was authorized for use in adults in the United Kingdom. fails to demonstrate what is DUE about this. But it is DUE! What it should probably say, is: On 8 November 2022, the first recombinant protein-based COVID-19 vaccine (Novavax's booster Nuvaxovid) was authorized for use in adults in the United Kingdom. It has subsequently received endorsement/authorization from the WHO, US, European Union, and Australia. (second sentence less necessary, but it is true. Might be too much of a listicle. Could instead say "from the WHO and a number of other countries") The WHO doesn't authorize drugs, of course, but it does endorse drugs in its Emergency Use Listing and countries do pay attention to that. Should also use these MEDRS sources: and  (this second one is especially useful as an expert review). I would also make the current next sentence On 12 November 2022, the WHO released its Global Vaccine Market Report... a new paragraph.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section (Vaccines), the wikilink for CanSino is really long! Just a stylistic thing but the text should remain the same, but only "CanSino Biologics" needs to be blue.
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 136 is FoxNews, it's AP but it's still Fox's website. I would replace with Reuters or The direct AP article or Nature news and include all the relevant date and authorship info. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 137 has been updated 31 March 2021, see, I think it would be prudent to make 31 March 2021 the date on the ref, since that is the most recent bout of peer review. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't love the idea of using WebMD for MEDRS reasons, as in Ref 138.
 * I think for the first use, it could easily be replaced with this excellent CDC page:.
 * For the second use, I would just remove it as we have multiple high quality sources already verifying that statement.
 * It's not that WebMD is explicitly NOT a MEDRS (although I would argue it isn't), but more so that we just have better sources available, and don't need to OVERCITE.
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done(I felt more comfortable repeating the same reference you indicated in both places--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion in, particularly wrt this sentence: Supportive care includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs. Because all of those things are useful for SEVERE cases, and this immediately comes after a sentence about mild cases. I would just clarify it to: Supportive care in severe cases includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I get what is trying to be said here: Existing drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin and so-called early treatment are not recommended... with "and so-called early treatment". But I think the phrasing is confusing in context and doesn't add anything. I would just remove "and so-called early treatment" to make it more concise and less confusing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This one is very minor, but with that same Treatment section, the sentence: The severity of COVID-19 varies, it may take a mild course with few or no symptoms... is quite long. I think it changes zero meaning but reads better to change the first comma to a period (after "varies") — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't totally see the relevance or how ref 154 fits in... Since it was published in 1975, lol. But I think it would be best to just remove it. Oh I see now, it's actually an error of how the ref info was fetched! That should probably, be fixed. Here's the right URL: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, it says: Nature reported in 2021 that 90 per cent of immunologists who responded to a survey "think that the coronavirus will become endemic".[169] but that survey was actually conducted on "Immunologists, infectious-disease researchers, and virologists from 23 countries". As a guy with a PhD in virology, I think it may be unfair to say they were all immunologists . I think "infectious disease researchers" is a better catch-all, but you could also just put "researchers" or "scientists" or even "relevant experts" instead of saying the type. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we have the excellent sentence Successful containment or suppression reduces Rt to less than 1. But I think we should probably wikilink "Rt" as a rather technical concept that isn't explained here (and probably shouldn't be to maintain summary style). I think the best destination would be: Basic reproduction number — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, I think we could add some wikilinks to point readers in the right direction. But it may require some slight massaging of text to avoid WP:ASTONISH issues. I also added what I thought were the most WP:DUE aspects in the latter two sentences. I would recommend something like this:I recognize this is one of my more large-scale recommended changes and will say it is also recommended with a low amount of certainty. I think the section would greatly benefit from this wikilinking, but also that it is probably not completely necessary. I do think it improves the article, though.I also know we have the section, but this is far more specific to lockdowns and the most severe cases, and thus justifies the wikilinks. Plus the wikilink practice is typically to wikilink first mention in a top-level section, which would still be true here. And these are much less ASTONISH than many of the wikilinks in that section. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, the first clause Due to capacity supply chains limitations is a little strangely worded. Why not change it to: Due to supply chain capacity limitations? Is this a UK-ism that I'm not aware of maybe? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done...Not that I'm aware of, I think the U.K. 'lingo' is very similar to the U.S.... I did want to take a moment to thank you for your ongoing comments/suggestions as they have been most helpful in the improvement of this article, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we say A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by Doctor Zhang Jixian. but I think per MOS:DOCTOR, we should probably instead say: A pneumonia cluster was observed on 26 December and treated by pulmonologist Zhang Jixian. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, we also say: Vision Medicals reported the discovery of a novel coronavirus to the China CDC (CCDC) on 28 December.[194][195] but this doesn't give the proper context as to what "Vision Medicals" is, so I think it's a bit confusing in retrospect. We should maybe say: After analyzing pneumonia patient samples, a genetic sequencing company named Vision Medicals reported the discovery of a novel coronavirus to the China CDC (CCDC) on 28 December.[194][195] or something similar. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, we also say: Eight of those doctors, including Li Wenliang (who was also punished on 3 January),[196] were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours; and Ai Fen was reprimanded but this doesn't give the reasoning why Ai Fen's mention is WP:DUE. It's also a bit of a mouthful in sentence structure. I suggest either A) deleting the Ai Fen mention, or B) changing to: Eight of those doctors, including Li Wenliang (who was also punished on 3 January),[196] were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours . Director of the Emergency Department at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Ai Fen, was also reprimanded. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done changed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, we say On 31 December, the WHO office in China was informed of cases of the pneumonia cases. This doesn't make much sense, so why don't we edit to: On 31 December, the WHO office in China was notified about the cluster of unknown pneumonia cases. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We also say However, in May 2020, CCDC director George Gao indicated the market was not the origin (animal samples had tested negative).[204] which is kind of funny in retrospect, since most scientists now believe the market probably was the origin. So why don't we change it to: In May 2020, CCDC director George Gao initially ruled out the market as a possible origin, as animal samples collected there had tested negative.[204] I don't think it would be proper to put anything else in there about the current state of the science (in this section anyway). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we say: A 24 January report indicated human transmission, recommended personal protective equipment for health workers, and advocated testing, given the outbreak's "pandemic potential". but this is somewhat awkward as a list given the hanging "human transmission." That's a pretty technical use of the language, so I would make it more standard for encyclopedia writing: A 24 January report indicated human transmission was likely occurring, and recommended personal protective equipment for health workers . It also advocated testing, given the outbreak's "pandemic potential". — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, I suggest we clear up some jargon/non-standard phrasing: On 9 November, Pfizer released trial results for a candidate vaccine, showing a 90 per cent effectiveness against infection.[223] That day, Novavax entered an FDA Fast Track application for their vaccine. ---> On 9 November, Pfizer released trial results for a candidate vaccine, showing a 90 per cent effectiveness in preventing infection.[223] That day, Novavax submitted an FDA Fast Track application for their vaccine. (we actually say things like "effectiveness against infection" in papers all the time, but it's very WP:jargon-y in my opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, we say: The variant, later named Alpha, showed changes to the spike protein that could be more infectious which is awkward because the changes aren't becoming more infectious, the virus is. I suggest we change it to: The variant, later named Alpha, showed changes to the spike protein that could make the virus more infectious — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * we also say in that same paragraph: As of 13 December, 1,108 infections had been confirmed. But we should probably say: As of 13 December, 1,108 infections had been confirmed in the UK. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Last thing in 2020: Ref 226 is a WP:PRIMARY source, but I think this is probably DUE. So we should add on this secondary news source: CNBC. But since we are including that source, we should also include the pertinent DUE info from that source, so I would edit to: On 4 February 2020, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar waived liability for vaccine manufacturers in all cases except those involving "willful misconduct" .[226] — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 227 needs a publication date. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 225 is also PRIMARY, so I would suggest adding this secondary news source to it: New Scientist — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 221 should have the author listed (Adam Beam). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 215 should have the author listed (Chiara Severgnini) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Refs 213 and 214 are PRIMARY, so we should add this secondary source: Vox. I think it's probably fine to leave 213 and 214, they do both add something in terms of verifiability. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 213 and 214 are both WHO?...how can they be primary via MEDRS?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The WHO is PRIMARY for what it does about things in the same way the CDC is PRIMARY about what it does. Their /guidance/ is a MEDRS, and secondary about the disease etc., but when the WHO says "I am declaring X" we prefer secondary coverage that WHO said X in addition to the actual statement of X. MEDRS doesn't really apply here because it isn't BMI. It's a historical event that WHO did X thing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of those situations where the PRIMARY source is permitted, but not preferred, if you get my meaning, per WP:PRIMARY. It would just be better to include a secondary source, and it also shows the content is DUE inclusion. I also think we can absolutely keep the primary source there. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The analogous situation would be, Joe Biden or Donald Trump says at a white house press conference, "COVID is a bad thing, I am declaring a national emergency!" It's clearly important that we cover that. But we wouldn't source it to the White House press release, since press releases aren't independent sources from the event and therefore are PRIMARY. We would use the Washington Post article where they say "Today, Donald Trump/Joe Biden said COVID is a bad thing." The WaPo coverage also would demonstrate the content is DUE. We need someone to be there to hear the tree falling in the forest, if you get my meaning. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done I see your point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The same is true for 211 and 212, so we should add this secondary scholarly source: Lancet Inf Dis — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 211 and 212 are both WHO?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC) discussed above
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we should wikilink the first section-level mention of CoronaVac in The CoronaVac vaccine was reported to be 50.4 per cent effective in a Brazil clinical trial. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Same with Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in On 12 March, several countries stopped using the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine due to blood clotting problems, specifically cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). It should also properly use the endash (–) in the mention. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that same section, the sentence On 20 March, the WHO and European Medicines Agency found no link to thrombus, leading several countries to resume the vaccine misuses the terminology and is a lil awkward. It should read: On 20 March, the WHO and European Medicines Agency found no link to thrombosis, leading several countries to resume administering the vaccine. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think maybe this is a bit too creative of a use of the language: the variant was first detected in the UK and two months later it had metastasized into a third wave there and is not encyclopedic in tone. I would maybe alter it slightly to: the variant was first detected in the UK and two months later it had become a full-fledged third wave in the country there. Viruses don't metastasize, cancers do :P — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We should probably add some DUE context to: On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30 by adding the following: On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30, due to a possible association with myocarditis. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On 10 November, Germany advised against the Moderna vaccine for people under 30 We should also wikilink "Moderna vaccine" to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, as the first section-level mention. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done (see above edit)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, Ref 239 is dead. I would replace it with: this BMJ piece. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In this section, we have the sentence: Later that month on 14 January, the World Health Organization recommended two new treatments, Baricitinib, and Sotrovimab (although conditionally). I find this to be too little information to give context, and overemphasizing dates. I would alter to: Later that month on 14 January, the WHO recommended the rheumatoid arthritis drug Baricitinib for severe or critical patients. It also recommended the monoclonal antibody Sotrovimab in patients with non-severe disease, but only those who are at highest risk of hospitalization. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the sentence Later on 24 January, it was reported that about 57% of the world had been infected by COVID-19, per the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model is awkwardly worded/phrased. I would change to: On 24 January, The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimated that about 57% of the world's population had been infected by COVID-19. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also change the paragraph-delineation and organization of this section to group related info, perhaps to something like (also putting in some minor style edits to WP:ASSERT facts): — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And then for the following paragraphs (November and December):On 11 November, the WHO World Health Organization reported that deaths since the month of February had have dropped 90 percent. Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said this was "cause for optimism".[253] On 3 December, the WHO World Health Organization indicated that, "at least 90% of the world's population has some level of immunity to Sars-CoV-2".[254] On 21 In early December, China began lifting some of its most stringent lockdown measures. Subsequent data from China's health authorities revealed that 248 million people, nearly 18 percent of its population, had been infected in within just the first 20 days of that month December, as China abruptly halted its stringent lockdown measures. [255] (make same paragraph) On 29 December, the US U.S. joined Italy, Japan, Taiwan and India in requiring negative COVID-19 test results from all people traveling from China due to the new surge in cases ., while t T he EU refused similar measures, stating that the BF7 omicron variant had already spread throughout Europe without becoming dominant.[256][257] —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, I would make the following edits (pare down one too detailed sentence, fix style issues):I know these few sentences have been subject to a lot of debate on the talk page and elsewhere, but it honestly shows in how stilted those sentences are! I think we should clean it up and provide only the most important info. These edits above don't change the substance of the content, but they do remove a lot of extraneous verbiage which actually distracts from the point imo. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Next paragraph:I cut the last sentence here as it is clearly a nothingburger with no related content here, and therefore likely UNDUE for this summary-style overview. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 259 is dead, should be replaced with: the original AP report — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 260 needs the authors listed: Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber, Jennifer Rigby, and Emma Farge — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 261 (Quartz) needs the authors listed: Diego Lasarte and Sofia Lotto Persio — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph:I know I'm making a lot of edits in this section, but I think that makes sense as it was the most recently introduced content and thus likely to be the least polished. Overall I still think the section is really good. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Last sentence: I would just smooth this out/make it more readable/less of a mouthful as: — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, it currently reads: However, cumulatively they had experienced only half the world average. I think we should clarify this as: However, cumulatively they had experienced only half of the global average in cases. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)
 * We also say "inflicting" in China opted for containment, inflicting strict lockdowns to eliminate viral spread. which I think is probably not very encyclopedic. How about "instituting" instead? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The rest of the China paragraph in that section is really good, no edits from a style/wording/due viewpoint. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * India paragraph: Let's wikilink "Aarogya Setu". — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also pare down that sentence/mention a bit, from Post-lockdown, the Government of India introduced a contact tracking app called Arogya Setu to help authorities manage contact tracing. Later this app was also used for a vaccination management program. to Post-lockdown, the Government of India introduced an app called Arogya Setu to help authorities manage contact tracing and vaccine distribution. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further edits to that paragraph: India's vaccination program was considered to be the world's largest and the most successful with over 90% of citizens getting the first dose and another 65% getting the second dose. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iran paragraph edits to make it sound more natural and get closer to the cited source: Early measures included the cancellation /closure of concerts and other cultural events,[306] Friday prayers,[307] and education shutdowns school and university campuses. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have the caption Disinfection of Tehran Metro trains against COVID-19 transmission. Similar measures have also been taken in other countries. which sounds kind of weird. Let's edit slightly to: Disinfection of Tehran Metro trains to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Similar measures have also been taken in other countries. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The rest of the Asia section looks really good from a style/wording/due perspective! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits to : By 17 March 2020, every country in Europe had confirmed a case,[323] and all have had reported at least one death, with the exception of Vatican City. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We wikilink COVID-19 pandemic in Italy to "Italy" in the first paragraph here, but I think this probably raises MOS:SEAOFBLUE and WP:ASTONISH concerns. Why don't we shift it down to "The Italian outbreak" at the start of the next paragraph instead? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor stylistic change: On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, including quarantining more than 50,000 people in northern Italy to On 22 February 2020, the Council of Ministers announced a new decree-law to contain the outbreak, which quarantined more than 50,000 people in northern Italy — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To help make this sentence make sense: On 11 March Conte stopped nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmaciesLets edit to: On 11 March, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte closed down nearly all commercial activity except supermarkets and pharmacies. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Several other places in that Italy paragraph need commas added, such as after On 19 March and On 19 April and On 10 November. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done (On 4 March)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The syntax of a German tourist tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in La Gomera, Canary Islands is a little strange, I think it would be more appropriate to say: a German tourist tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on La Gomera in the Canary Islands — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would remove entirely the clause while also being one of the countries more in favour of vaccines against COVID-19 (nearly 94% of its population were already vaccinated or wanted to be). I don't think it adds much and it's pretty confusing given the numbers we just read in the preceeding sentence. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also remove However, as of 21 January 2022, this figure had only increased to 80.6%. Nevertheless, Spain leads Europe for per-capita full-vaccination rates. for similar reasons. It just muddies the waters and is poor summary-style. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should capitalize the C in Swedish C onstitution. Given that it actually has a proper name that is not that: Basic Laws of Sweden. But we should wikilink it so: the Swedish constitution. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of all instances of "U.S." should be changed to: US. per MOS:US —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done (via several edits over entire article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence In the United States, COVID-19 vaccines became available in December 2020, under emergency use, beginning the national vaccination program, with the first vaccine officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on 23 August 2021 is pretty confusing. Perhaps a better formulation: In the United States, COVID-19 vaccines became available under emergency use in December 2020, beginning the national vaccination program . The first COVID-19 vaccine was officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on 23 August 2021. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We should change the tense of this to past tense: On 18 November 2022, while cases in the U.S. have declined, COVID variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1 have become dominant in the country so: By 18 November 2022, while cases in the U.S. had declined, COVID variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1 had become dominant in the country. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly for: Provinces and territories have, to varying degrees, implemented school and daycare closures, prohibitions on gatherings, closures of non-essential businesses and restrictions on entry. we should change to: Provinces and territories have, to varying degrees, implemented school and daycare closures, prohibitions on gatherings, closures of non-essential businesses and restrictions on entry. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly: Canada is facing a surge in influenza, while COVID-19 is expected to rise during winter > Canad ian health authorities saw a surge in influenza, while COVID-19 was expected to rise during winter — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, Ref 386 should have its author listed: Sophia Ankel — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto for Ref 388: Elida Oliveira and Brenda Ortiz — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This ref (388) should be listed after the content it verifies, namely "tested positive for the virus" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In, the sentence Many preventive measures have been implemented should be made past-tense, as in: Many preventive measures were implemented — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, moved into the new house and my partner is taking a post-move nap so great time to wiki a bit Last sentence in this section could be shortened and made tighter: it was reported by the World Health Organization that most countries on the African continent will miss the goal of 70 percent of their population being vaccinated by the end of 2022to In October 2022, WHO reported that most countries on the African continent will miss the goal of 70 percent vaccination by the end of 2022. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done... glad to here it, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite 399 should have its author listed: Lisa Schlein — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite 389 should be reformatted. 14 February 2020 is the pub date, and the archive date appears to be 15 February 2020 with a retrieval date of 24 March 2020, as far as I can tell. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite 395 needs its authors listed: Stephanie Busari and Bukola Adebayo — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite 396 needs its author listed as well: Jason Burke — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we could also tighten this sentence: By early March, with cases exceeding 1000 a day Western Australia conceded defeat in its eradication strategy and opened the borders after previously delaying the re-opening due to the omicron variantto: By early March 2022, with cases exceeding 1,000 a day , [<--See commas] Western Australia conceded defeat in its eradication strategy and opened its borders . after previously delaying the re-opening due to the omicron variantI would also add the year 2022 after: Despite record cases, Australian jurisdictions slowly removed restrictions such as close contact isolation, mask wearing and density limits by Aprilas in: Despite record cases, Australian jurisdictions slowly removed restrictions such as close contact isolation, mask wearing and density limits by April 2022. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some edits to the next paragraph to shorten/simplify: — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This clause: and daily reporting transitioned to weekly reporting also needs a secondary source in addition to its current one, e.g.: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This part reached Oceania on 25 January 2020, with the first confirmed case reported in Melbourne, Australia might benefit from a secondary source in addition to the primary australian govt PR source. E.g. Brisbane Times or The Guardian — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That Brisbane Times source would also be good to add to the next sentence: It has since spread elsewhere in the region as a secondary source in addition to the dashboard — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 407 should also have its author added: Isabel Dayman — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 408: author is Rhiannon Lewin — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 409: Alexandra Humphries — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 410: Maani Truu — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 411: Phil Mercer — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 415: Andrew Brown — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with Ref 416: Hayley Taylor — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, this sentence should be simplified: Due to its remoteness and sparse population, Antarctica was the last continent to have confirmed cases of COVID-19 and was one of the last regions of the world affected directly by the pandemicto: Due to its remoteness and sparse population, Antarctica was the last continent to have confirmed cases of COVID-19 and was one of the last regions of the world affected directly by the pandemic — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This sentence should be made past tense and simplified: At least 36 people are confirmed to have been infectedAs in: At least 36 people have been confirmed to have been infected — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The ref (421) for this sentence is also not very high quality (Infobae?) so I would replace with one or more of these: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, I actually think this sentence should be removed: In June 2020, the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched the UN Comprehensive Response to COVID-19.I tried really hard to find independent non-UN reliable sources that cover this to make the argument that it is DUE inclusion, and I could not find a single one that mentions the issuance of the document or the document at all. The current source is non-independent as it's from the news branch of the UN. Of course they think it's significant, their head honcho issued the thing! But apparently nobody else considers this very significant, by WP:RSUW standards.Probably UNDUE for a top level article like this. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this section is missing some content about criticisms, particularly with regards to these sources: NYT, Journal article, Journal article 2,book, ReutersAnd some content about good things the UN has done regarding attempts to render aid and requests for more money, wrt these sources: Reuters, Reuters 2, Reuters 3, CFRI think it probably just needs two additional sentences. I couldn't find much else that would be DUE for something as top level as this, but I would not be opposed to more. I just think this is the minimum — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add this article as a secondary source for the WHO section of Other Responses. I think the remainder of the Other Responses section is good. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * in, the oxford comma before "Latin America" in The pandemic shook the world's economy, with especially severe economic damage in the United States, Europe, and Latin America should be removed, since we do not use it in the rest of the article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also add this as a good secondary source for that statement: (IMF is secondary but scholarship is better) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also in this section, Ref 431 is primary and not the best for this content. I would replace it with these ones from Reuters and CNN: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence One study found that travel restrictions only modestly affected the initial spread, unless combined with other infection prevention and control measures also needs a secondary source, here's a good one: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence Several countries repatriated their citizens and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surroundings is somewhat awkward, I would edit to: Several countries repatriated their citizens and diplomatic staff from Wuhan and surrounding areas — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the oxford comma before Thailand in Germany, and Thailand, to comply with the rest of the article and the MOS. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would remove the wikilink from "cruise ship" in On 15 February, the US announced it would evacuate Americans aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for both A) WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns and B) because it's a pretty common thing that doesn't need to be wikilinked. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would remove ref 437 altogether as unnecessary, PRIMARY, and not verifying the content. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, ref 453 is not an independent RS. I would replace it with: this Axios source — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 457 needs its author listed: Ned Temko — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto for Ref 459: Anjali Sundaram — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did want to say though, that the Impact section is very well written, especially the Economics subsection. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence The outbreak was blamed for panic buying, emptying groceries of essentials such as food, toilet paper, and bottled water has it backwards, I think. I would suggest mirroring the caption of the image in that section, and editing to: Pandemic fears led to panic buying, emptying groceries of essentials such as food, toilet paper, and bottled water — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In this section, I would change the non-standard According to WHO's Adhanom to According to WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus to be consistent — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add these sources:  to PPE stocks were exhausted everywhere since its such a broad statement, and broad statements are well-served by broad sourcing. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would make In September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remain generally stable and the supply outlook remains positive past tense, as in: In September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remain ed generally stable and the supply outlook remain ed positive — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We need an independent source for: September 2021, the World Bank reported that food prices remain generally stable and the supply outlook remains positive. However, the poorest countries witnessed a sharp increase in food prices, reaching the highest level since the pandemic began.here are some potential ones, that at least verify the poorest countries witnessed a sharp increase in food prices, reaching the highest level since the pandemic began:
 * Policy Brief from Expert at the Brookings Institution:
 * Global Finance mag: (perfect for this)
 * journal article review: (verifies that food prices went up but not so much the world bank part given this was from April 2021)
 * For The Agricultural Commodity Price Index stabilized in the third quarter but remained 17% higher than in January 2021 here are some good secondary sources:
 * Research Group (Industry Arc):
 * Polish Bank policy council: (page 23)
 * I would just add one or more of these to the primary source that's already there. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done and done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 470 needs its author listed: Alexander Smith — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The link for Ref 471 is wrong, it goes to the NBC article. I would either remove it (forbes contributor, I think? But also forbes staff writer so not sure). Anyway the link should be: and it should have its author listed if its gonna stay: Christopher Helman —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * removed (see above edit)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, Ref 472 needs its authors listed: HANNAH MCGIVERN and NANCY KENNEY — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The tense of the sentence The performing arts and cultural heritage sectors have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, impacting organisations' operations as well as individuals – both employed and independent – globally. is also weird. I would change to: The performing arts and cultural heritage sectors have been profoundly affected by the pandemic . Both organisations' and individual's operations have been impacted globally. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also change By March 2020, across the world and to varying degrees, museums, libraries, performance venues, and other cultural institutions had been indefinitely closed with their exhibitions, events and performances cancelled or postponed.to: By March 2020, across the world and to varying degrees, museums, libraries, performance venues, and other cultural institutions were had been indefinitely closed with their exhibitions, events and performances cancelled or postponed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add "2021" to A UNESCO report estimated ten million job losses worldwide in the culture and creative industries as in:A 2021 UNESCO report estimated ten million job losses worldwide in the culture and creative industries. and add one of these secondary sources:  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence On 23 March 2020, United Nations Secretary-General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres appealed for a global ceasefire;[483][484] 172 UN member states and observers signed a non-binding supporting statement in June,[485] and the UN Security Council passed a resolution supporting it in July.[486][487] from should be moved to  (under Other Responses) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we should probably have "(CCP)" after the "Chinese Communist Party" mention, since it is a widespread abbreviation in some parts of the world but not everywhere. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 500 needs its author listed: Julian E. Barnes — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 501 is great, but it should probably be paired with this open access one: from Reuters —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 495 needs its author listed: Helen Davidson — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 493 is unnecessary and likely not considered an independent RS. Everything it verifies is also verified by the Guardian source. So it should be removed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 496 should have its author listed: Daniel Boffey — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto with 497: Elisabeth Braw — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And 498: Matthew Karnitschnig — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, "and Ursula von der Leyen offered an official apology to the country" should be edited slightly to give context to:and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen offered an official apology to the country — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, the sentence Beginning in mid-April 2020, protestors objected to government-imposed business closures and restricted personal movement and association is a lil awkward. We should revise it to:Beginning in mid-April 2020, protestors objected to government-imposed business closures and restrictions on personal movement and assembly. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The next sentence Simultaneously, essential workers protested in the form of a brief general strike needs a bit more context from the cited source. Let's revise to:Simultaneously, essential workers protested unsafe conditions and low wages by participating in a brief general strike. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 510 needs its author listed: Michael A. Cohen — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated the cost of preventable hospitalizations (of unvaccinated people) for COVID-19 in the United States between June and November 2021 at US$13.8 billion could be simplified to: The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that preventable hospitalizations of unvaccinated Americans in the second half of 2021 cost US$13.8 billion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence There were also protest in regards to vaccine mandates in the United States. should have its own ref. Here are some good ones: Relatedly, the ref from Fox News 513 should probably be removed as not very reliable for this content. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done(both)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence One matter that was taken before the Supreme court which had to do with enforcing said mandates on private companies, resulted in OSHA losing the case needs some work re: style, content, and description. We could revise to:In January 2022, the US Supreme Court struck down an OSHA rule that mandated vaccination or a testing regimen for all companies with greater than 100 employees. And the current ref 512 from The Hill (and 513 from Fox as described above) should be replaced with this more updated one after the decision: from CNBC and this excellent summary from SCOTUS blog: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add as another scholarly source to: The pandemic disrupted food systems worldwide in  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add similarly to Food access fell – driven by falling incomes, lost remittances, and disruptions to food production —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I would add to The pandemic and its accompanying lockdowns and travel restrictions slowed movement of food aid. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I say this because while the FAO and WHO are worthy resources, wiki in general prefers scholarly sources and so these can be added secondarily to verify — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hospital visits fell in should get a ref. Here are some suggestions:   —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Similarly, People with strokes and appendicitis were less likely to seek treatment needs a MEDRS. Here are some suggestions: (appys)  (strokes). —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done(both)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Northern Hemisphere" should be capitalized — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence In late 2022, during the first Northern Hemisphere autumn and winter seasons following the widespread relaxation of global public health measures, North America and Europe experienced a surge in respiratory viruses and coinfections in both adults and children needs a MEDRS. Here are some suggestions: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence In the United Kingdom, pediatric infections also began to spike beyond pre-pandemic levels, albeit with different illnesses, such as Group A streptococcal infection and resultant scarlet fever also needs a MEDRS. Here are some ideas:Scholarly: WHO WHO Europe PHE — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence Planned air travel and vehicle transportation declined in probably needs its own source. Here are some ideas:  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done...however I placed this source at the end of the paragraph, together with the prior source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise for A wide variety of largely mammalian species, both captive and wild, have been shown to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, with some encountering particularly fatal outcomes, this probably needs a source. Here are some ideas:  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:JOBTITLES, the following letters need to be capitalized (see bold):
 * Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen) in the image caption under
 * Russian president Vladimir Putin in
 * European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in
 * CCP general secretary Xi Jinping in
 * prime minister Viktor Orbán in
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done (all five)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, there needs to be a space between the cite and "Reports" in this part: world.[569][570]Reports — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also a word missing that would help clarify in US President Donald Trump was criticised for referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the "Chinese Virus" and "Kung Flu", which were condemned as being racist and xenophobic, so I would edit to:US President Donald Trump was criticised for referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the "Chinese Virus" and "Kung Flu", terms which were condemned as being racist and xenophobic — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would attribute and simplify the sentence: Correspondence published in The Lancet on 20 November 2021, suggested the "inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens", noting vaccinated individuals' high rates of infection, high viral loads, and therefore their relevant role in transmissionso my suggestion is to edit to: In a correspondence published in The Lancet in 2021, German epidemiologist Günter Kampf described the harmful effects of "inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens", noting the evidence that vaccinated individuals play a large role in transmission. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think we probably need to add the other prominent correspondence which responded to Kampf for FRINGE, parity and completeness, so I would add:American bioethicist Arthur Caplan responded to Kampf, writing "Criticising [the unvaccinated] who... wind up in hospitals and morgues in huge numbers, put stress on finite resources, and prolong the pandemic... is not stigmatising, it is deserved moral condemnation." —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, we have cultural changes in the job market but that isn't really the best summary of the content. I think cultural changes in the workplace is more precise given what is detailed in this section. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some content to add to for completeness: Many comparisons were made between the COVID-19 and 1918 influenza pandemics, including the development of anti-mask movements, the widespread promotion of misinformation and the impact of socioeconomic disparities. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done (completely)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The section needs some adjustments to comport with WP:ASSERT and WP:FRINGE.It currently reads: According to the Pew Research Center, amid the COVID-19 pandemic some religious groups defied public health measures and stated "the rules [during COVID-19] were a violation of religious freedom".I would rewrite to: In some areas, religious groups exacerbated the spread of the virus, through large gatherings and the dissemination of misinformation. Some religious leaders decried what they saw as violations of religious freedom. In other cases, religious identity was a beneficial factor for health, increasing compliance with public health measures and protecting against the negative effects of isolation on mental wellbeing. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, I would add the following sentence: Many scientific publishers provided pandemic-related journal articles to the public free of charge as part of the National Institutes of Health's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Initiative.  I would add this after the sentence "Some news organizations removed their online paywalls for some or all of their pandemic-related articles and posts."I would then remove Some scientific publishers made pandemic-related papers available with open access. and Research is indexed and searchable in the NIH COVID-19 Portfolio.[597] (Keep ref 594, remove 595 and 597)I would then also add: According to one estimate from researchers at the University of Rome, 89.5% of COVID-19-related papers were open access, compared to an average of 48.8% for the ten most deadly human diseases. So altogether, those changes would make the section read as: 

It is undeniably a big deal when the Chief Scientific Advisors of 12 countries ask for a private industry to do anything (in this case, form the COVID-19 public health emergency collection). So I think we need to highlight it a bit more, hence these edits. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We should remove the second wikilink of "conspiracy theories" in . I.e. conspiracy beliefsWe should add a wikilink to cognitive biases. I would also remove "jumping to conclusions and" from that sentence, as it doesn't add much. If we want to highlight another bias, could use selective perception or motivated reasoning. Up to you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In, I would make These include past tense. As in These included. I also think we should change "as of November 2022" to "As of May 2023" since that's the most recent citation there, for Croatia. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would edit to clarify for: On 10 April 2023, US President Joe Biden signed a House bill to immediately end the COVID-19 national emergency,[614] ending the Public Health Emergency on 11 May.[615] to On 10 April 2023, US President Joe Biden signed a house bill ending the COVID-19 national emergency.[614] The separate HHS-led "public health emergency" ended 11 May.[615] (also neither of these "emergencies" should be capitalized per our MOS.) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In section ....For concision, I would remove "some" in It has been included in the narratives of ongoing pre-pandemic television series and become a central narrative in some new ones, with mixed resultsFor grammar, we should add a verb to: The pandemic has driven some people to seek peaceful escapism in media, while others towards fictional pandemics...as in: The pandemic has driven some people to seek peaceful escapism in media, while others were drawn towards fictional pandemics...I think for WP:RSUW and DUE reasons, we should add the following at the end of that short paragraph (after "Common themes have included..."): Many drew comparisons to the fictional movie Contagion from 2011, praising the film's accuracies while noting some differences, such as the lack of an orderly vaccine rollout.I say this because there are literally dozens and dozens of articles about comparisons of the film and the pandemic, and pandemic/ID experts almost universally praise the film as the most accurate "disease thriller" out there. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The grammar of As people turned to music to relieve emotions evoked by the pandemic, Spotify listenership showed that Classical, Ambient, and Children's genres grew, while it remained relatively the same for Pop, Country, and Dance.[621][622] needs adjusting:to: As people turned to music to relieve emotions evoked by the pandemic, Spotify listenership showed that Classical, Ambient and Children's genres grew, while Pop, Country and Dance remained relatively stable. (rearranging second clause and removing oxford commas) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)