![]() | 2022 United States infant formula shortage was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 24, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | A fact from 2022 United States infant formula shortage appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The facts are that formula is available at the border, while there is. shortage in the US. The facts are that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido milk power, This is acknowledged even by MotherjOnes: "from what I can see, the images don’t exactly show pallets full of just baby formula. One of the images Commack office shared shows a fully stocked shelf with baby formula, sandwiched between shelves of fruit pouches.". That this is "misinformation" by Fox or Republicans is an opinion by Fox's competitor CNN,. I might just as well call it "CNN disinformation: for ignoring the fact that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido powdered milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The photo Hannity pointed to, and the one that followed it, showed boxes and boxes clearly labeled NIDO. As anyone at Fox could have discovered with about a minute’s worth of fact-checking, NIDO is not baby formula; it is powdered milk. [3]
Shall i accuse you of spreading misinformation?You go right ahead and do that. soibangla ( talk) 13:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Other photos showed shelves stocked with Advantage baby formula, which is purportedly from the border. On shelves, in inventory. As opposed to "pallets and pallets of baby formula" that is actually powdered milk. Kindly refrain of accusing me of spreading misinformation. soibangla ( talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
the general claimas shown in the first sentence of the section is that Biden is favoring migrants over citizens and sending "pallets and pallets of baby formula" to the border while American babies starve, and it is unmitigated
We don't know she lied, or even stated incorrect information. We don't know if pallets of formula are currently shipped or not. The formula is made elsewhere, and somehow arrives at the border. It is likely shipped, and likely shipped on pallets. Perhaps it shipped some time ago, perhaps not. We don't know. The most you can say is that Hannity incorrectly identified one pallet, containing milk powder, as one continuing formula, and used it as a backdrop for Commack's interview. From there to "republicans are conducting a disinformation campaign" is quite a stretch. But thanks for fixing the blatant error you introduced into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't know, then how can she state it as fact? We can't even verify the image she tweeted, which shows no pallets despite her assertion. Of course it got shipped at some time, likely on pallets, but we don't know if it was during the current shortage, but she and others present it as current, and use images of something different, to fabricate yet another fake scandal. And anyone unfamiliar with these deceptive techniques is unaware of how the modern Republican party and its enablers operate. They do this all the time. And no, that's not a partisan POV. Please learn how to indent. soibangla ( talk) 17:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't know, but maybe she does. Or maybe she is just assuming, which may be poor practice, but is not necessarily misinformation. For us to label this as 'misinformation', we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don't. I see someone else has noted that your editing is bad - maybe take a step back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don'tIn fact, we do.
someone else has noted that your editing is badheh. soibangla ( talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No, we actually do not know that, at least not that I have seen. Your flippant dismissal of others' opinions is not a good look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Nothing there is evidence that pallets are not being shipped. At a minimum, we'd need a statement from a relevant agency stating they are not currently being shipped. I have seen none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
evidence that pallets are not being shippedis not the correct way of looking at this. Rather, examining the assertions made by Republicans and their media allies is, and reliable sources show they are incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 21:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to say Republicans are spreading misinformation by claiming pallets are being shipped, then yes, you have to show evidence that they are not. No reliable source that I have seen says they are not being shipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am demanding proof for what you claim. If you claim "X did not happen", you need to provide proof for it. The first sentence of the section says "Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. "- that is true, it is an allegation the Republicans are making, which has nothing to do with the question (or rather, ridiculos, irrelevant detail) of pallets being shipped. It is further not a statement of fact, capable of being proven or disproven, but rather a value judgement - that the Biden admin is prioritizing migrants over American citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
that is truebut later it's
not a statement of fact.
maybe take a step back?soibangla ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're having trouble comprehending: It is true that the Republicans are alleging this (Democrats exhibiting wrong priorities), and it is also true that what they are saying not a statement of fact, but opinion. If I said that in my opinion you're not reading very well, it would be a fact that this is my opinion and that I said this, and at the same time, it would not be a statement of fact, but an opinion - my evaluation of your reading comprehension skills. If the pallets is not the issue, what specifically are you claiming is not true about the statements Commack made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for consensus on a photo that was removed from the article with no real reason given in the comments section. The photo showed mostly empty shelves and an "I Did That" sticker with President Biden pointing to a spot on the empty area of the shelf. I was surprised because I was looging for formula and kept coming across these stickers at every location. Thoughts?
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by Swpb ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC).
dismissed the idea that his administration should have acted sooneris too close to the original CNN article, however. The article meets NPOV. As to the hooks, I share NLH's concerns about ALT1 needing additional context to continue, and I almost worry #2 might be an WP:EGG type of link, though the sources for all three hook facts check out. I also advocate replacing the New York Post ref #55 with a source of higher quality (see WP:NYPOST). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Izzy Borden insists this:
Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. Texas governor Greg Abbott and the president of the border patrol union jointly characterized providing formula to migrants as "another one in a long line of reckless, out-of-touch priorities from the Biden administration."
belongs in the "Formula availability at the Southern border" section rather than the "Misinformation about shortage" with the sole rationale of "this does not say Biden policies are the cause of the shortage, and thus irrelevant to what the WaPo and NYT say about such claims." [10]]
Not only do the sources support the content, the editor's rationale that it belongs in one place but not the other seems quite peculiar.
Prior to coming to this article, this content flowed quite seamlessly in the Misinformation section, but the editor's edits have disrupted that flow and now we're going back and forth with no resolution. Based on my experiences with this evidently new editor, it is not becoming easier for me to AGF.
What do others think? soibangla ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a few more details, since this section is misleadingly labeled "Izzy Biorden edits". On May 15, Springee wrote 'The title of the "Republican" section fails IMPARTIAL. The body of that section also doesn't support "misinformation". The title should be changed to something like "political disputes about..." or such. This was clearly a bad edit [8]". And the edit by Soibangle was also reverted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2022_United_States_infant_formula_shortage&type=revision&diff=1087954889&oldid=1087954822 by EditPatroller2976, who also objected to the "misinformation "heading — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Izzy Borden (
talk •
contribs)
18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing peculiar about wanting that content in a different place - I am not disputing that Republicans have said what is quoted, or its relevance to the article, I am saying it is not "misinformation" - it is a value judgment. It can be in the article, and with context taht says that is the law. It just can't be labeled "Misinformation" simply because soibangla doesn't like it.
I think the Republican point regarding priorities is that if the administration had prioritized preventing illegal immigration, there'd be no need to provide formula (or need to provide less formula) as required by law. You can debate whether or not this is a legitimate position, or whether the administration is actually prioritizing preventing illegal immigration, but it is not misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This is spelled out here for example - "a need that wouldn’t exist if Biden hadn’t effectively opened the border to illegal migrant waves" - https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/go-rep-stefanik-biden-owns-our-baby-formula-mess/. It's fine to juxtapose this with the legal requirement, but not to call it misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
We have s source that clearly says supply chain issues are the main cause, editors aren;t at liberty to dismiss this because they "don't buy" it. in addition to that source, the Atlantic article says "Recalls are common. Thousands of drugs and products are recalled every year, and they don’t create a meltdown at pharmacies or require CVS to instate Soviet-style rationing of essentials. So something else is going on here." and other articles (which I will soon add) point out to out of stock issues in October or November 2021, long before the recalls and plant shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@ SunDawn and Izzy Borden: If you're interested, link in header — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 00:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: Same. —
swpb
T •
go beyond •
bad idea
00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 05:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not a quickfail, but it's also not going to be a normal review from me, at least to start. You will need to put in some work. It's concerning to me that the mix of sources on this topic is pretty much all news material, both national and local. A cursory search in WP:TWL and Google Scholar reveals a number of promising academic and medical sources. Hawkeye7 left a list of possible larger structural factors worth discussing at Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage#Issues that could be covered in this article. Incorporating this material would broaden the article beyond a rehash of current affairs material from last year. This article was sent to GA in January, about 200 days from the end of the material covered in the article, and it has sat at GAN for about 200 days as well. The record needs to be refreshed in more ways than one.
In addition to improving the source quality and prose, new material will need to be added so as to address the main aspects of the topic (3a). The new material would ideally cover:
You should also look at it with fresh eyes. You have not edited this page in more than a year, and you may find new and different issues or see that something has been overemphasized with the passage of time. I see that Swpb is on a wikibreak, but as a substantial contributor, they may want to be aware of this review starting as well.
Other high-level copy issues:
A report by Politico on June 9...has close paraphrasing issues to the source with some passages lifted more clearly. Earwig highlights such shared passages as had been monitoring general supply chain concerns regarding formula.
My current plan is to hold back on the most intensive parts of the review—copyediting and spot checks—until this has been done satisfactorily. This page could pass, and there are solid pieces in place. But it just as easily could fail.
@ SunDawn and Swpb: Wanted to make sure this was seen. I'd like to see some activity around improving these specific issues before I start copyediting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
There are four images. Two are CC-licensed from Flickr. Two others are PD-USGov. All are appropriate, and some have alt text.
![]() | 2022 United States infant formula shortage was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 24, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | A fact from 2022 United States infant formula shortage appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The facts are that formula is available at the border, while there is. shortage in the US. The facts are that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido milk power, This is acknowledged even by MotherjOnes: "from what I can see, the images don’t exactly show pallets full of just baby formula. One of the images Commack office shared shows a fully stocked shelf with baby formula, sandwiched between shelves of fruit pouches.". That this is "misinformation" by Fox or Republicans is an opinion by Fox's competitor CNN,. I might just as well call it "CNN disinformation: for ignoring the fact that the original COmmack photo showed formula, not Nido powdered milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The photo Hannity pointed to, and the one that followed it, showed boxes and boxes clearly labeled NIDO. As anyone at Fox could have discovered with about a minute’s worth of fact-checking, NIDO is not baby formula; it is powdered milk. [3]
Shall i accuse you of spreading misinformation?You go right ahead and do that. soibangla ( talk) 13:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Other photos showed shelves stocked with Advantage baby formula, which is purportedly from the border. On shelves, in inventory. As opposed to "pallets and pallets of baby formula" that is actually powdered milk. Kindly refrain of accusing me of spreading misinformation. soibangla ( talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
the general claimas shown in the first sentence of the section is that Biden is favoring migrants over citizens and sending "pallets and pallets of baby formula" to the border while American babies starve, and it is unmitigated
We don't know she lied, or even stated incorrect information. We don't know if pallets of formula are currently shipped or not. The formula is made elsewhere, and somehow arrives at the border. It is likely shipped, and likely shipped on pallets. Perhaps it shipped some time ago, perhaps not. We don't know. The most you can say is that Hannity incorrectly identified one pallet, containing milk powder, as one continuing formula, and used it as a backdrop for Commack's interview. From there to "republicans are conducting a disinformation campaign" is quite a stretch. But thanks for fixing the blatant error you introduced into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't know, then how can she state it as fact? We can't even verify the image she tweeted, which shows no pallets despite her assertion. Of course it got shipped at some time, likely on pallets, but we don't know if it was during the current shortage, but she and others present it as current, and use images of something different, to fabricate yet another fake scandal. And anyone unfamiliar with these deceptive techniques is unaware of how the modern Republican party and its enablers operate. They do this all the time. And no, that's not a partisan POV. Please learn how to indent. soibangla ( talk) 17:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't know, but maybe she does. Or maybe she is just assuming, which may be poor practice, but is not necessarily misinformation. For us to label this as 'misinformation', we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don't. I see someone else has noted that your editing is bad - maybe take a step back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
we'd have to know that it is incorrect, and we don'tIn fact, we do.
someone else has noted that your editing is badheh. soibangla ( talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No, we actually do not know that, at least not that I have seen. Your flippant dismissal of others' opinions is not a good look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Nothing there is evidence that pallets are not being shipped. At a minimum, we'd need a statement from a relevant agency stating they are not currently being shipped. I have seen none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
evidence that pallets are not being shippedis not the correct way of looking at this. Rather, examining the assertions made by Republicans and their media allies is, and reliable sources show they are incorrect. soibangla ( talk) 21:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to say Republicans are spreading misinformation by claiming pallets are being shipped, then yes, you have to show evidence that they are not. No reliable source that I have seen says they are not being shipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am demanding proof for what you claim. If you claim "X did not happen", you need to provide proof for it. The first sentence of the section says "Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. "- that is true, it is an allegation the Republicans are making, which has nothing to do with the question (or rather, ridiculos, irrelevant detail) of pallets being shipped. It is further not a statement of fact, capable of being proven or disproven, but rather a value judgement - that the Biden admin is prioritizing migrants over American citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
that is truebut later it's
not a statement of fact.
maybe take a step back?soibangla ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're having trouble comprehending: It is true that the Republicans are alleging this (Democrats exhibiting wrong priorities), and it is also true that what they are saying not a statement of fact, but opinion. If I said that in my opinion you're not reading very well, it would be a fact that this is my opinion and that I said this, and at the same time, it would not be a statement of fact, but an opinion - my evaluation of your reading comprehension skills. If the pallets is not the issue, what specifically are you claiming is not true about the statements Commack made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for consensus on a photo that was removed from the article with no real reason given in the comments section. The photo showed mostly empty shelves and an "I Did That" sticker with President Biden pointing to a spot on the empty area of the shelf. I was surprised because I was looging for formula and kept coming across these stickers at every location. Thoughts?
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by Swpb ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC).
dismissed the idea that his administration should have acted sooneris too close to the original CNN article, however. The article meets NPOV. As to the hooks, I share NLH's concerns about ALT1 needing additional context to continue, and I almost worry #2 might be an WP:EGG type of link, though the sources for all three hook facts check out. I also advocate replacing the New York Post ref #55 with a source of higher quality (see WP:NYPOST). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Izzy Borden insists this:
Republicans alleged the Biden administration was prioritizing the needs of migrant children over those of American citizens by providing formula to children at the Southern border. Texas governor Greg Abbott and the president of the border patrol union jointly characterized providing formula to migrants as "another one in a long line of reckless, out-of-touch priorities from the Biden administration."
belongs in the "Formula availability at the Southern border" section rather than the "Misinformation about shortage" with the sole rationale of "this does not say Biden policies are the cause of the shortage, and thus irrelevant to what the WaPo and NYT say about such claims." [10]]
Not only do the sources support the content, the editor's rationale that it belongs in one place but not the other seems quite peculiar.
Prior to coming to this article, this content flowed quite seamlessly in the Misinformation section, but the editor's edits have disrupted that flow and now we're going back and forth with no resolution. Based on my experiences with this evidently new editor, it is not becoming easier for me to AGF.
What do others think? soibangla ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a few more details, since this section is misleadingly labeled "Izzy Biorden edits". On May 15, Springee wrote 'The title of the "Republican" section fails IMPARTIAL. The body of that section also doesn't support "misinformation". The title should be changed to something like "political disputes about..." or such. This was clearly a bad edit [8]". And the edit by Soibangle was also reverted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2022_United_States_infant_formula_shortage&type=revision&diff=1087954889&oldid=1087954822 by EditPatroller2976, who also objected to the "misinformation "heading — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Izzy Borden (
talk •
contribs)
18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing peculiar about wanting that content in a different place - I am not disputing that Republicans have said what is quoted, or its relevance to the article, I am saying it is not "misinformation" - it is a value judgment. It can be in the article, and with context taht says that is the law. It just can't be labeled "Misinformation" simply because soibangla doesn't like it.
I think the Republican point regarding priorities is that if the administration had prioritized preventing illegal immigration, there'd be no need to provide formula (or need to provide less formula) as required by law. You can debate whether or not this is a legitimate position, or whether the administration is actually prioritizing preventing illegal immigration, but it is not misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This is spelled out here for example - "a need that wouldn’t exist if Biden hadn’t effectively opened the border to illegal migrant waves" - https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/go-rep-stefanik-biden-owns-our-baby-formula-mess/. It's fine to juxtapose this with the legal requirement, but not to call it misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
We have s source that clearly says supply chain issues are the main cause, editors aren;t at liberty to dismiss this because they "don't buy" it. in addition to that source, the Atlantic article says "Recalls are common. Thousands of drugs and products are recalled every year, and they don’t create a meltdown at pharmacies or require CVS to instate Soviet-style rationing of essentials. So something else is going on here." and other articles (which I will soon add) point out to out of stock issues in October or November 2021, long before the recalls and plant shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Borden ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@ SunDawn and Izzy Borden: If you're interested, link in header — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 00:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: Same. —
swpb
T •
go beyond •
bad idea
00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sammi Brie ( talk · contribs) 05:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not a quickfail, but it's also not going to be a normal review from me, at least to start. You will need to put in some work. It's concerning to me that the mix of sources on this topic is pretty much all news material, both national and local. A cursory search in WP:TWL and Google Scholar reveals a number of promising academic and medical sources. Hawkeye7 left a list of possible larger structural factors worth discussing at Talk:2022 United States infant formula shortage#Issues that could be covered in this article. Incorporating this material would broaden the article beyond a rehash of current affairs material from last year. This article was sent to GA in January, about 200 days from the end of the material covered in the article, and it has sat at GAN for about 200 days as well. The record needs to be refreshed in more ways than one.
In addition to improving the source quality and prose, new material will need to be added so as to address the main aspects of the topic (3a). The new material would ideally cover:
You should also look at it with fresh eyes. You have not edited this page in more than a year, and you may find new and different issues or see that something has been overemphasized with the passage of time. I see that Swpb is on a wikibreak, but as a substantial contributor, they may want to be aware of this review starting as well.
Other high-level copy issues:
A report by Politico on June 9...has close paraphrasing issues to the source with some passages lifted more clearly. Earwig highlights such shared passages as had been monitoring general supply chain concerns regarding formula.
My current plan is to hold back on the most intensive parts of the review—copyediting and spot checks—until this has been done satisfactorily. This page could pass, and there are solid pieces in place. But it just as easily could fail.
@ SunDawn and Swpb: Wanted to make sure this was seen. I'd like to see some activity around improving these specific issues before I start copyediting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
There are four images. Two are CC-licensed from Flickr. Two others are PD-USGov. All are appropriate, and some have alt text.