Talk:Influenza vaccine/GA1

GA Review

The TOC reveals a couple of structural problems with the article. Here is the TOC now: <verbatim>

   * 1 Purpose and benefits of annual flu vaccination
   * 2 Efficacy of vaccine
   * 3 Annual re-formulation of flu vaccine
   * 4 History of the flu vaccine
         o 4.1 Influenza
         o 4.2 Flu vaccine origins and development
         o 4.3 Flu vaccine acceptance
         o 4.4 Current status
   * 5 Clinical trials of vaccines
   * 6 Who should get it
   * 7 Side effects
   * 8 Flu vaccine virus selection
   * 9 Flu vaccine manufacturing
   * 10 H5N1
   * 11 Flu seasons
   * 12 Flu vaccine for nonhumans
   * 13 See also
   * 14 References
   * 15 Further reading

</verbatim> I collapsed some sections because their subsections are okay (at least, the titles are okay). Here is how I recommend structuring the article. First, the general concept of an annual vaccine (any annual vaccine) needs to be explained before jumping into the natural history of influenza. Also, the title of this article is not Annual influenza vaccine for humans, therefore the larger context of Influenza vaccine should be established before discussing the annual vaccine for humans. I would put the horse, poultry, and pig vaccines first, dispense with them, then deal with the human one. The resulting TOC might look like this: <verbatim>

   * 1 History of flu vaccines
         o 1.1 Influenza
         o 1.2 Vaccine origins and development
   * 2 Vaccine design and production
         o 2.1 Clinical trials
         o 2.2 Virus selection and reformulation
         o 2.3 Manufacturing
   * 3 Vaccines for nonhumans
   * 4 Annual vaccine for humans
         o 4.1 Purpose and benefits of flu vaccination
         o 4.2 Efficacy of vaccine
         o 4.3 Vaccine acceptance
         o 4.4 Current status
         o 4.5 Who should get it
         o 4.6 Side effects
   * 5 H5N1
   * 6 Flu seasons
   * 7 See also
   * 8 External links
   * 9 References

</verbatim> I stop there, because this article merits a quick fail for another reason: its POV is very much not neutral. It is extremely biased in favor of vaccination. --Una Smith (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)