This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
The title should be changed to 'Zika virus outbreak in French Polynesia (2013–2014)' to match the style used for
Zika virus outbreak (2015–present).
Further to this, given that Zika is also reported in
New Caledonia as part of this outbreak, a possible better title would be 'Zika virus outbreak in the Pacific (2013–2014)'. Note that if this title is used then the lede will need to be rewritten.
I suggest changing it to "2013-2014 Zika outbreaks in Pacific Ocean islands" or maybe in "Oceania"Â ; Note years first to be compliance with the naming convention, which is better than the parentheses at the end. Note plural "outbreaks" - there was more than one distinguishable outbreak. Cases of Zika had been detected earlier, but did not constitute an outbreak, since the virus has been endemic in Southeast Asia for many years (see
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/858346).
juanTamad (
talk)
06:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Is the linking of 'neurological syndromes' to
neurological disorders correct? No article seems to explicitly separate the syndromes from the other disorders. See
[2]
There is no page specifically on the specific disorders, the ocular I think. So the link to neurological disorders is probably the best one, for now.
juanTamad (
talk)
06:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Concurrent outbreak of chikungunya fever - I could not find the source supporting this so I removed it. See
[3]
Air travel has facilitated the spread of the virus, as travel times are within the
incubation period of the disease.
Does the citation make reference specifically to Zika and its incubation period, and to the Pacific Islands and air travel? If not, this might be too vague for this article, although perhaps worth a mention on
Zika virus.
Alcherin (
talk)
17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm planning to add more on this, researching the subject. Will delete for now. Here's an article that might be useful on this page: Experts Study Zika’s Path From First Outbreak in Pacific[1]juanTamad (
talk)
03:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)reply
With a number of Zika outbreaks occurring in Oceania throughout 2015, it might be necessary to change the article title to include newer outbreaks of Zika. Outbreaks of Zika in Samoa, American Samoa and Tonga have already been mentioned under the Aftermath heading, and
this document talks about an early 2015 outbreak in the Solomon Islands and a renewed outbreak in New Caledonia.
Alcherin (
talk)
14:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to want to keep it as documentation of the period 2013-2014, an important predecessor of the outbreak (and source of the outbreak) in the Americas, rather than a "breaking news site" about ongoing and future outbreaks in the same area now, which may prove to be isolated events not necessarily worthy of a WP page. Have to wait and see. IMO, the outbreak "in the Americas" falls into the same category. It should be documented as an historical event by itself, not making the assumption that it will continue to spread globally and become indigenous (big difference from travel related cases) elsewhere. In other words, don't get caught up in the media hype. Whatever develops in the future outside of the Americas becomes a separate event.
juanTamad (
talk)
15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
map
This is a good map:
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V19N41/Roth_Fig1.png Eurosurveillance is by the ECDC and I found this: "Except where otherwise stated, all manuscripts published after 1 January 2016 will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. You are free to share and adapt the material, but you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." I'll do it tomorrow (late here) but you'r welcome to go ahead of course.
juanTamad (
talk)
15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
"published after 1 January 2016" - the article containing the map was published on 16 October 2014, so I am unsure if it qualifies for the CC-BY licence.
Alcherin (
talk)
15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
This is the response: "Eurosurveillance is an open-access journal and we are happy for you to reuse the map as long as Eurosurveillance is acknowledged as the source, in the citation style indicated below:" I emailed back asking that they specifically agree to: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. No reply as yet. What do you think? Are we safe? Where can we ask?
juanTamad (
talk)
08:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)reply