Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead section: OK.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Layout: OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Words to watch. OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fiction: N/A &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lists: OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Checking whether sources are reliable is being slowed down by some of the references not including the publisher. I will not insist on adding the publisher etc to refs, but it is good practice and reduces the risk of losing them to a dead link sometime. I am partly fixing as I find them. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few bare urls among the references. If those links get broken, there is no way of knowing what the reference was, and all the material associated becomes unreferenced. This can be a real pain to fix later, so I strongly recommend fixing them now. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * will do, (still working)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)✅ please let me know if I missed any
 * Found a few dead links: "Ebola Reduced Lagos Hotel Patronage by 75% in 2014, Articles – THISDAY LIVE". thisdaylive.com. Retrieved 26 April 2015. deleted "WHO: New Ebola cases could be up to 10,000 per week in 2 months". The Huffington Post. 14 October 2014. Retrieved 14 October 2014. ✅ better reference "USAID seeking better Ebola protective gear". The Seattle Times. 6 October 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2014. ✅ better reference "Sierra Leone's main referral hospital has been overwhelmed". StarAfrica. Retrieved 1 October 2014. "8 Ebola suspects freed by relatives in Sierra Leone". Global Post. Xinhua. 28 May 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2014. ✅ better reference
 * will replace--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * OK so far. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Within balance of probability. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Very broad in its coverage. Lots of detail, but I cannot say whether any of it is unnecessary.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All good
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead section:

 * Please check casualty figures against reference - Total suspected cases and total deaths do not tally with local cases in infobox and 1st paragraph.
 * Ok, this is something we went thru in the process of the covering the outbreak....1. the table at the bottom of the article reflects the numbers (not including flare-ups) since the thinking was the main outbreak was over, though there could be additional isolated cases (flare-ups) but not the mass outbreak that had been observed until then... 2. the infobox does include the flare-up numbers (however should you believe an adjustment is warranted I am open to any adjustment in text (or numbers)?....(the infobox numbers and lede numbers are the same)
 * The current reference gives 28616 suspected cases and 11310 deaths against 28657 and 11325 in the lede and infobox, and the totals at the bottom of the columns in the infobox are not arithmetically correct sums of the figures above them in the columns. Either there are errors, or something is missing. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * your correct, (it was the last two countries to have flare ups, I adjusted the numbers)... however if you look at these numbers (minus UK and Italy that are not there, but had 1 case each) and add it to  youll get the number at the bottom?? (and it still does not add up)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Article title in 1st sentence not bolded. I don't understand the hidden comment referring. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold.✅..
 * (the WP:SBE means Superfluous_bolding_explained I have deleted the hidden comment and "bolded")
 * OK, sorted.
 * I could not find Sardinia mentioned in the reference given.
 * Reference added ✅
 * Although the epidemic is no longer out of control, flare-ups of the disease are likely to continue for some time. How long? Does this refer to some time from March 2016? Is this statement still valid?
 * According to this statement from WHO the answer is yes, however as time goes by the possibilities diminish (over time). That is not to say an independent new outbreak could start, however it would not be seen as a continuation of this one, I could cite this in the text if you think appropriate?
 * Sorry, nor expressing myself well. My point is that "for some time" is an indefinite duration with an unclear starting point. Will it still be a valid statement in 3 months, or a year, assuming no-one edits it? It would be preferable if a more definite period could be indicated, so it can be clear whether further outbreaks would be considered part of this epidemic, or a distinct later event. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * your correct will adjust wording, and post here..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk12:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)......Although the epidemic is no longer out of control, flare-ups of the disease for some time were likely, however the possibility of sexually transmission of survivors to others is still possible  ...this statement is true due to ...i have adjusted the wording and added a reference ✅...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Overview

 * OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Outbreak

 * Map of ongoing status is not dated and now shows situation after end of epidemic. Is this actually useful with current caption? Clarify status of map, preferably in caption. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At last flareup there would have been at least one country in yellow, indicating isolated cases. Map is all green and blue. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * right will adjust text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Age of index case is quoted as 1 year and 2 years, This looks like an error, though the sources do differ. This should be clarified so it does not appear to be misquoted. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * my wordsearch is temporarily off, I'm having trouble finding where it says 2 year old?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that in one of the other references, not in the article. Don't worry about it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As the epidemic waned, following international control efforts, the 8 April 2015 edition of WHO's Ebola Situation Reports stated that a total of 30 cases were reported[50][69] These references do not support the number quoted, and there is no link to 8 April ed of setrep, which probably does. It is a little confusing. If the sitrep gives 30 as the number, why are the other refs there? Also clarify if these were new cases. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Guinea

 * leaving only skeletal staff to handle the Macenta region Where I come from we would say skeleton staff. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Some paragraphs in this section mention a large number of dates, without specifying the year. It would be easier to keep track if the year was specified in the first date mentioned in any paragraph, and at any point where the year changes (I don't think this second case actually occurs, but bear it in mind in case I have missed an instance. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes I see your point and will look over that text, you are correct it is important that the reader know if it is 2014,2015 or 2016. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sierra Leone

 * that same day, it was equally reported that Ebola restrictions had halted market activity in Kambia District, amid protests. equally reported? == also reported? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberia

 * CDC is mentioned several times in this section. Even if there is only one CDC, most readers will not know this, particularly non-Americans. Suggest you either link first instance in the section or clarify some other way.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Rest of Epidemiology
Other subsections OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Virology

 * OK.: &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Transmission

 * It is not entirely clear how an Ebola outbreak starts may be true, but I cant find it in the associated reference.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * have struck that text.✅
 * On 12 January, the journal Nature reported that the virus's natural host could be found by studying how bush-meat hunters interacted with the ecosystem Not really what the reference says. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it probably came from His team is studying how bush-meat hunters interact with wild ecosystems to identify factors that might be linked to the spillover of zoonotic infections such as Ebola ...(will adjust the wording)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * or by contact with objects recently contaminated. It would be good to clarify exactly what constitutes contamination. The impression I have so far is that it would have to be with body fluids, but not I am not an expert - just like most of the potential readers. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * adjusted text ref--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * Better now, but would by contact with objects recently contaminated with the body fluids of an actively ill, infected person be clearer? Up to you. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Containment and control

 * OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prognosis
OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Post-Ebola syndrome
OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Level of care
OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Protective clothing
Define or link PAPR. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Healthcare workers
OK. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Experimental treatments, vaccines and testing
About 15 different vaccines were in preclinical stages of development; these included DNA vaccines, virus-like particles and viral vectors (vesicular stomatitis virus, human adenovirus, and vaccinia virus). Another 7, as yet unheard-of, vaccines (ChAd3, MVA-BNFilo, Ad26, MVA-EBOZ, rAd5, rVSV and VLP), were also being developed. Wikilink these where possible. This is pretty opaque to the lay person. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ though not all could be wikilink (redlink)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with redlinks &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, added redlinks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Statistical measures
Define CFR again for this section or wikilink. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Economic effects

 * fueled by stigma is a strange way of expressing the point. It is reasonably clear what it is intended to mean, so I will not insist on a change. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * in both the affected areas and throughout Africa might be improved by a slight re-ordering to  both in the affected areas and throughout Africa. Original suggests two affected areas. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The World Bank had projected an estimated loss of $1.6 billion in productivity for all three affected West African countries for 2015. Each or combined? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * combined--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅


 * Employment and the economy, it was believed, would also lead to health consequences in the long-term – cross-country interactions between income per capita and mortality rates were noted. Clarify - seems somewhat confused to me. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * strike text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅


 * In the capital, Montserrado saw a 47% decline in employment per firm in contrast to what obtained prior to the Ebola outbreak. What does Montserrado have to do with the capital? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅


 * For example, in 2015, it was reported that Gambia's tourism had fallen below 50 percent, of what? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * of its normal business, (per prior years)...will fix text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Responses

 * In August they published a roadmap to guide and coordinate the international response to the outbreak, Is "roadmap" an appropriate word in this case? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * that's the term used --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then that would make a good reference for the statement. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * good, its already included--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of WHO

 * There has been significant criticism of the WHO from some aid agencies because its response was perceived as slow and insufficient, is a bit on the weaselly side. Could this be more specific? I see it is detailed in the following text.  &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The panel indicated that the response begged strong operational capacity within the WHO and as well as the aid system, if outbreaks turned into emergencies; a politically protected system for WHO emergency declarations; and strong mechanisms for the responsibility of all parties, from national governments to non-governmental organizations to UN agencies. Furthermore, mobilisation of the understanding needed to fight outbreaks would require an international structure of rules to enable access to the benefits of research, and financing to establish technology when commercial motivations were not appropriate. Can this be rewritten so the meaning is immediately clear? The rest of the paragraph might also benefit by more straightforward language. Who are the "panel", and are all instances of "they" in this paragraph referring to this panel? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the panel refers to (abstract, ive got access to Science direct should the full text be needed)...they is interchangeable w/ panel...I will flesh out the text in question towards a clearer meaning--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)....have changed text ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of reported cases and deaths

 * Data sources - for what? the tables? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, for the table information (in some instances we would go directly to the site of the ministry of "x,y,z country" as many times they were faster with case and mortality counts than WHO) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest putting the data sources information as either a note included in the table, or if it refers to both tables, as a footnote linked from both tables. Then you would not need subsections in the timeline section. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is this ok?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something like this:


 * great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)....


 * BTW in retrospect you seem to be more knowledgable than I about tables, I cant seem to do the same w/ the second table, would you have a suggestion?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what should go in, so I will just add an extra full width row at the bottom and you can copy/paste the text into it. If you have a problem, let me know.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The links to main and see also articles are both redirects, Do you prefer the names as they are? If it does not matter, I suggest using the current article names to eliminate the redirect, but not a big issue.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * prefer as they are (should you really think the alternative is better then i'll edit it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, No problem. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * With the new formatting of the tables, is there any further value in keeping the subsection Data sources? ( the information is now in the notes of the first table ) &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no reason to have that part--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)✅
 * Now that there is no "Data sources" subsection, the subsection title for "tables" seems redundant. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * removed✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * 1) This is a very big article. It is unlikely that many readers will have the interest or attention span to actually read the whole thing at a sitting. Consider splitting it at some stage. This is a big job, and not a requirement of the GA criteria. I don't require it to be done, just saying consider the possibility, particularly if you want to take it to FA at some time. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, I will (I'm almost done with the references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no idea if there is a MEDMOS order for the sections for epidemics. I looked but couldn't find one. If there is I trust you will have conformed as required. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes per Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles though as you point out there is no exact rule/blueprint--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I have finished the basic review. There were not many problems, and most have already been satisfactorily fixed. I will be away most of tomorrow, so will probably only be able to check back on Monday. Leave a note when you have dealt with all the outstanding items, so I know when best to start the final check. If you have any queries before that, feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Cheers,&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Passed. I think I have done all the associated manual administrative edits required of the reviewer. Good work. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you, it was a privilege to work w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)