This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 20, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I stopped by to casually read this and wound up adding substantial critical content, because an issue with significant coverage was covered with "CEPI came under criticism for this by Médecins Sans Frontières, however," (MSF's criticisms are more on the order of concern about regulatory capture of the CEPI). The section had neutrality problems, both in the selection of sources and in how they were described. I have not gone over the other sections. It is easy to write unbalanced coverage on an emotive, high-stakes topic, and I'm talking about the sources here; as Wikipedia editors, we are also human and therefore need to take particular care with such topics (myself not excluded). Since the CEPI is a young organization and is currently performing a lot of important actions very rapidly, this article may not yet have the stability needed for good article nominations, though I think that the topic is an important one that deserves this level of careful review, and would clearly be a good candidate once it is more mature. HLHJ (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is there a redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hatchett to this site? Is there any reason why there is no site for a men with this position, just a a redirect? --Struppi (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I read a press release that Moderna is attributing CETI with funding the initial clinical batch of it's Covid vaccine https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-longer-shelf-life-its-covid-19-vaccine mRNA-1273
"The first clinical batch, which was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, was completed on February 7, 2020"
Does this deserve a mention in the article? Seems important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnurkel (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I was in the middle of deleting parts of the article due to PROMO (as tagged already) when I noticed its a Good Article' , perhaps a reassessment would be a good idea, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)