A fact from Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
join and to participate in
project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build
consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the
project talk page.
For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (
March 2020)
"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (
April 2020,
May 2020)
Page title
COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(
RM April 2020, including the main article itself,
RM March 2021).
SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (
June 2022, overturning
April 2020)
Map
There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (
May 2020)
There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (
May 2020)
For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (
May 2020)
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that recommended workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 emphasize
ventilation,
sneeze guards,
hand washing, and
staying home if one is sick as even more effective than
masks? Source:
[1], pp. 12–16: "The most effective protection measures are (listed from most effective to least effective): engineering controls, administrative controls, safe work practices, and PPE." The examples in the hook are listed in the sections for each type of protection measure.
Comment: Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources, which is within policy, but this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character limit. However, there is more than 1,500 characters of original text, mainly in the lead and the WHO-sourced text near the end of the article. See
DYK rule 2b.
The revised hook seems much the same as the previous version. It is unsatisfactory because measures such as sneeze guards do not seem to be given any special emphasis within the article. For example, the advice that leaps out at first glance is the "Top 10 Tips" poster. This doesn't even mention ventilation and sneeze guards or anything like them. Also, the article seems to be mainly written from a US perspective. As the US is not doing very well in this pandemic, its policies should not be given undue weight as best practice.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: This is covered by the quote from the original hook above. As part of the
hierarchy of hazard controls,
engineering controls and
administrative controls like the ones mentioned are always considered more protective and desirable than
personal protective equipment. As for the prevalence of U.S. sources, I agree that more non-U.S. sources could be included, especially for developing countries. When I wrote this article on March, I looked for non-U.S. sources but OSHA and CDC had by far the most comprehensive guidance. However, U.S.-centricness is not part of the DYK criteria; it's more of an issue for a GA review.
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (
talk)
22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I do not agree that the source quote supports the hook as it doesn't highlight items like sneeze guards either. On the other point, the US context matters for the hook because it says "recommended workplace hazard controls". This does not say who recommends them and whether the recommendation is reliable. It seems to be implicit
Americentrism – that US standards are the only ones that exist and that they are trustworthy. Other places have workplace standards – see
COVID-19: EU-OSHA guidance for the workplace, for example. Do they emphasize sneeze guards?
Andrew🐉(
talk)
23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The trouble with ALT2, for me, is that it is quite unremarkable. I had a look through the article but couldn't see anything that wasn't fairly obvious. Perhaps if we chew over the detail, something better will emerge. For example, the link
sneeze guard doesn't work well currently. That's because that article is just about the sort of glass panel that you tend to find covering a salad bar. What we're talking about now is the sort of partition or perspex screen which would previously be used in high security situations -- bank cashiers, NY/London taxis, ticket offices and the like. See
here for some discussion of the difficulty of doing this in more casual situations like an Uber ride.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The third time is the charm as ALT3 seems excellent, making an interesting point which makes me want to know more. The source is a wiki, but that just seems to be the way that the EU-OSHA maintains their documents and there's a single author credited. And so we're good to go. Thanks for perservering.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah: I put a note about this at the top of the nomination, but it's easy to miss with all the subsequent discussion. There's a lot of text closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources. According to
DYK rule 2b, this text doesn't count towards the 1,500 character requirement, but there's still enough original text in the article to satisfy it. As for the OSHWiki, it's an official publication of
EU-OSHA, and it's not really a traditional wiki in that contributions are only made by accredited authors (see
[3]).
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (
talk)
00:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The article is currently dominated by US OHSA material. As there seem to be significant differences between countries about measures such as masks, we should consider material from other parts of the world too. After a quick browse, here's some suitable links: