Talk:Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

message: This page needs to be expanded SUBSTANTIALLY. I think the MMWR is a resource of under-realized value in not only the US but also the rest of the world. Is anyone willing to help me really get this article in shape? JeffreyN 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've added the 2004 report on the levels of lead in children in Washington DC.  Since it was playing a role in a larger story, and even at the end was severly criticised by a congress committee, it clearly ought to be mentioned.
I also thought that I should add a short section about the controversy; emphasising the MMWR report, but otherwise presenting condensed material from our article Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water, and referring to that article for further information.  However, I found it hard to be as short as I had intended.  IMHO, in order to make a reasonable presentation, we should present the background, he report, the criticism, and the response; and even if I tried to make each of these short, in total, this now encompasses rougly half the article (and rather more than less).
Now, I think that this is "unfair".  Of course, Wikipedia does not set out to be "fair" to its editors or readers...; but we do try to make some reasonably balance in what we present.  In this case, we have an important source of information about various health issues.  Since I think that that is what it is, I think that the article mainly should focus these aspects.
In other words, the positive impact now get a too small proportion of the reader's attention, compared to the lead report controversy.  On the other hand, I find it hard to make the section about that controversy much shorter, with a maintained reasonable content; but other editors might be more successful.
Barring that, the most reasonable solution would be to extend the rest of the article.  E.g., there are several "notable articles" mentioned.  If someone knows more about these, there could be short sections added for each one of them.  Likewise, it would be interesting to know what kind of general reception the MMWR has in the US; and to what extent it also influences health issue awareness abroad.
To sum up, I agree completely with what JeffreyN wrote, four years ago. JoergenB (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A substantial addition - but unhappily inducing a lack of balance. 

message: I think "Notable Articles" section of this article should be in prose. It's just a list of articles that doesn't explain why these articles are notable achievements, which is what this section should do.
- 76.121.211.59 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Articles" in Prose 

message: I also agree that this page could see a significant amount of improvement. I do think, though, that this page has tremendous potential. With expansion, more detail, and explanation (like on the "Notable Articles"), I believe the article overall could be more impactful and useful. I did notice, too, that at least two of the links in the "References" section no longer worked, which certainly diminishes the article's impact. This should be fixed as soon as possible.Rangers2000 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation