Talk:Mass vaccination

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Mjocampo2 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

=Foundations II 2022 Group 15 proposed edits=

Our Group 15 is proposing to increase the amount of citations, facts and content under each of the four types of mass vaccinations. We propose to update all the citations to ensure that they are all accurate and the most up to date. We also are proposing to make a general smallpox subheading and move the 1947 New York City Smallpox scare as a sub sub heading section under smallpox. Each of the four of us will be responsible for one of the 4 types of mass vaccinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatanabe2024 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Josh - Small pox

I would like to expand the small pox section to focus more on the universal effort to eradicate it, rather than focus specifically on one outbreak. JRamos24 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sharyse - Polio vaccination

I propose to add a new sentence: In 1988, the world decided to make efforts to completely eradicate polio which led to a large increase in new mass vaccination campaigns. <10.1007/3-540-36583-4_11> Swatanabe2024 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Asa- Swine flu vaccination

[from the article]: In 1976 in the United States, a mass swine flu vaccination program was discontinued after 362 cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome were identified among 45 million vaccinated people.[5]

I propose to add more content to the swine flu section:

There are important lessons to be learnt from the recent 'Swine Flu' pandemic. Improving techniques are necessary in trying to decrease the spread of infection-both in the community and within our hospitals would mean improving infection control and hygiene, and the use of masks, alcohol hand rubs and so on. [6] PMID: 24149036 Asayena (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick - COVID-19

I will add more sources and make changes to existing material. I will add more currents events regarding vaccination and change the organization of the section.Ngutierrez3 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer review
1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group's edits expanded the article greatly. The group has added the rich history of mass vaccination as well as current events revolving vaccination. 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has achieved their goals according to the comments left on the Talk page. 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? A) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? The history section is mostly neutral. It may be beneficial to include history from other countries, as some sections are more focused on the US. The contemporary usage section could be more balanced by including information about anti-vaccine sentiment. Changing some of the wording in the contemporary usage section may also help reflect a neutral point of view. Adding statistics or phrases like "According to the WHO..." can make the article sound more reliable rather than opinionated.

Joanneguan (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review Joanne! We really appreciate your feedback and I agree that the history sections are US based and could include more worldwide views. It was difficult sometimes to find sources in a neutral world point of view especially with politics and war involved many times, however we will continue adding. I've also brought this up with the rest of the group. With regard to the neutral phrasing, I also completely agree and I have already changed some of the sentences in my section to your suggested framework. Swatanabe2024 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

D: Question 1 Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?-The group has a lead section that is easy to understand and clearly states what is going to be addressed in the upcoming article. In the second sentence where they say "scare of a disease" can be taken out because outbreak is sufficient enough. The group has a clear structure of explaining what mass vaccination is and then using that to lead into when this has occurred in history and the steps taken when mass vaccination was required. The group had a balanced coverage using the smallpox, polio and covid outbreaks to explain and help strengthen an individual's understanding of mass vaccination. The sources cited are all reputable and are not outdated, strengthening their article. Question 2 Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? - After reading this article it is clear to me what mass vaccination is, what the goals of it are, and how it has been utilized in the real world. It is easy to follow and understand, if I did not have any medical background I would be able to understand and get a good grip of what mass vaccination is. I liked how they included criticism of mass vaccination because that is a real world problem that we got to experience first hand with the COVID-19 vaccination and it is important to include that. Question 3D-Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?- The group included other countries in making efforts in mass vaccination and sharing their statistics, they talked about which political party was more inclined to take the vaccine in terms of swine flu. A great way to improve this article would be the inclusion of homeless individuals, those in poverty, and those who do not have easy access to healthcare and share the statistics if the counties they were living in helped these individuals with transportation to vaccination sites/clinics in order to help more individuals get vaccinated. There are many barriers to getting to a vaccine clinic whether it be language, transportation, or taking time off work these are all factors that can make it difficult for an individual to go and receive a free vaccine and it would be important to include that in the article. Ajackob (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Arbelena Jackob 08/1/2022


 * Thank you for your feedback! We will go back and try to add more information about vaccine barriers such as transportations, language barriers, and how different populations were vaccinated such as homeless individuals. Ngutierrez3 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The group’s edits do substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework.” The lead section of this article is very easy to understand and tells me what this topic is and its significance. The article also has sections that are organized in a sensible order. There is a good balance of content throughout each topic in the article, and the content is neutral and does not attempt to persuade the readers to feel a certain way about the topic. The article also has many reliable sources, not heavily relying on only one or two sources which make the article unbalanced.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. Looking at the proposed edits listed on the Talk page, the amount of reliable content and citations were significantly increased, and each person has added a substantial amount of relevant information with reliable sources to their assigned topics.

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

The edits made on this article are overall consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style, other than some of the subheadings being capitalized. For example, “Interest in Worldwide Eradication” should be written as “Interest in worldwide eradication” as Wikipedia says that only proper nouns should be capitalized. Also, avoid putting footnotes after each sentence if all sentences that are right next to each other belong to the same reference. For example, under the discussion of early successes in the eradication of smallpox, there are two sentences that state, “This was enabled by improvements in vaccine production and storage. Prior to new developments, transportation represented a major issue and hindered mass vaccinations. Because the vaccination requires a live virus, it originally required a sample to be transferred from person-to-person or animal-to-person directly,” which belongs to the same reference. Just place the footnote at the end of the second sentence. Mjocampo2 (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Mona Jane Ocampo


 * Hi Mona! Thank you for reviewing our article! I get what you mean about the capitalization of only proper nouns and I'll be sure to make those corrections. With regard to citations, although it is not necessarily required to cite after every sentence, it is best practice for the credibility of the article. For example, if I site at the end of a paragraph, one may assume that everything within that paragraph belongs to that citation. However, another editor may insert an unreferenced line within the paragraph which may be mistaken as belonging to the source at the end of the paragraph. Here's an opinion article with given examples. Why most sentences should be cited. I do appreciate the time you've taken and thank you for your kind response. JRamos24 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer review
Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group has substantially improved the article through adding much more details and history regarding the topic. The group was also able to add many resources supporting their claims.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the articles has gained much more sections and details on such information. It further expands on the history of mass vaccinations and provides in great detail the events that had occurred.

Question 3B. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? No, there is once source that is from a wikipedia page and does not count as a secondary source. However, the rest of the sources are great sources and are freely available. Gipsharon08 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Sharon!
 * Thank you for catching the wikipedia page source. That was originally there from before and I have now updated it to a reliable source.
 * Cheers,
 * Asa Asayena (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

=Final Reference Review= References were reviewed JRamos24 reviewed references 1-8, Swatanabe2024 reviewed references 9-16, Asayena reviewed references 17-24, and Ngutierrez3 reviewed references 25-32. Reference 1 and 2 were duplicates and will now be referenced as reference 1. There were no predatory references found only duplicate references and some changes to formatting.

Final reference review: 5 references reformatted, 0 predatory references found, and 1 duplicate reference consolidated Ngutierrez3 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)