Talk:Polio

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Medicine: Translation / Neurology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Viruses Top‑importance

	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.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Polio is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Eradication

Is it just me? It seems extremely odd that there isn't a section in the article documenting the ongoing attempts to eradicate the virus (or did I just miss it?). With a fair wind, Polio will be relegated to the history section in the next few years. New funding for the ongoing attempt announced by UNICEF a month ago: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2023/10/one-billion-health-security-financing-eib-european-commission Rafflesgluft (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, searching within the article I can now see it is covered, and does have its own separate article... however I think a top level section titled "Eradication attempts" or similar would make it much clearer to the reader? Rafflesgluft (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why the article is "protected", i.e. I can't edit it, but because of Israels genocidal war in Gaza, polio has now been diagnosed in a Palestinian infant. The WHO/Unicef are urging for a ceasefire in order to distribute over half a million doses of vaccine to the impoverished population. This information should be added under "Eradication / Middle East". Since this situation could lead to a major outbreak, potentially spreading to other countries, it's important that the facts are available to all WikiPedia readers. Link to the source: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/varlden/poliofall-upptackt-i-gaza-fn-vadjar-om-paus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.113.16 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review Wikipedia's oldest articles. Upon quickly skimming this article, I noticed some concerns which I have outlined below:

• There are several uncited statements including entire paragraphs,
• The "History" section doesn't seem to have post-2001 information,
• The "Research" section is quite undevelopped and has an "update needed" banner from 2020.
• There are some sources in the "Further reading" section that might be included in the article.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720I think I've finished. Please review. Bob (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robertpedley: I am very busy in real life so I only took a skim, but here are some thoughts:

• The research section still feels quite scarce. What is happening with polio research? Is it getting funding? What are they researching?
• "Even if polio can be eliminated completely from the world population, vaccination programs should continue for at least ten years." Why? Says who? What does this have to do with research?
• There are a couple of sentences that need citations, which I have indicated with a cn tag.
• Can the history section be divided with level 3 headings? Or perhaps shortened? Usually, each section is 2-4 paragraphs.
• I am not sure which bullet points in the "Eradication" section are cited to what. Can this be clarified, maybe with a citation after each bullet point?

I hope work continues on this. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add another review since Hog Farm pinged me here. In short, I'm sure this article has good bones from its original FA work, but articles naturally deteriorate over time, and this one needs some renovations to bring it back up to the FA criteria. The two big things (with a non-exhaustive list of examples):

• Some reorganizing to improve readability:
  • Can we wrap the material in the Etymology section and the Passive immunization subsection into the History section? Polio has a rich history, if the section needs to be broken into subsections so be it.
  • Similarly, the Orthotics section is jarring. Merge into the Treatment section?
  • The regional blurbs under Epidemiology#Eradication should be merged into cohesive prose. They're very choppy now.
  • Speaking of which, a full description of the Eradication programs history, structure, and progress is probably due in as a separate article section (this is what I ended up doing at Dracunculiasis, another disease with a well-known eradication program).
  • Lots of odd sentences feel like they'd flow smoother in other sections: "The term "poliomyelitis"... of poliovirus", "Poliomyelitis does not affect any species other than humans", "A rare condition with a similar... enteroviruses other than poliovirus." (suspect this deserves slightly more detail elsewhere; any case of Acute flaccid myelitis is going to arouse suspicion of poliovirus), "Early symptoms of paralytic polio ... time the fever breaks", and more.
• Time for some new sources, where appropriate - per WP:MEDDATE we aim to source medical material to references that were published within the last five years. Most polio cases are behind us, so if older sources allow a richer disease description, that's ok. But material that purports to represent the current scientific mainstream (like that in the Pathophysiology section, Diagnosis, Treatment, and the Prevention material that doesn't belong in the History section) would really benefit from updated source material.

These would require some moderately heavy lifting. Once addressed, there are some smaller prose issues that should be ironed out to make the article shine. But that can wait until we have structure and sources we like. Happy to help with this where possible, but realistically I won't have the bandwidth to take the lead on this or do more than a section or two for a while. In the meantime, if there's any way I can be useful, just let me know. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Epidemiology

The polio outbreak in Gaza underscores the risk of a premature transition away from oral vaccines. I added a sentence ("Prematurely sunsetting or altering the oral vaccine may increase the risk of cVDPV spread.[97]") and citation to note this risk, but it got reverted. Could someone unrevert it (link) and/or reword it as you see fit? Thanks! Gatorjakey (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)