This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oceania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania 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.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses Low‑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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 16 February 2016 by reviewer SwisterTwister ( talk · contribs). 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases. Further detail on New Caledonia. Eurosurveillance. Perinatal transmission. CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases. Zika in semen confirmed on Tahiti. CDC Emerging Infectious Diseases - Ahead of Print Zika in semen confirmed in imported case. WHO Bulletin Updated source on numbers, relevant to both 2014 and later outbreaks. Weekly Pacific Syndromic Surveillance Reports List of WHO South Pacific disease reports

The title should be changed to 'Zika virus outbreak in French Polynesia (2013–2014)' to match the style used for Zika virus outbreak (2015–present).

Further to this, given that Zika is also reported in New Caledonia as part of this outbreak, a possible better title would be 'Zika virus outbreak in the Pacific (2013–2014)'. Note that if this title is used then the lede will need to be rewritten.

Alcherin ( talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah, although I don't think the saga of the name changing for what should be "2015 Zika virus outbreak in the Americas" IMHO, is over yet (see with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Health incidents and outbreaks). In the Pacific is better, can include the smaller outbreaks that were (or seem to have been) offshoots of French Polynesia, like Easter Island. juanTamad ( talk) 23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I suggest changing it to "2013-2014 Zika outbreaks in Pacific Ocean islands" or maybe in "Oceania" ; Note years first to be compliance with the naming convention, which is better than the parentheses at the end. Note plural "outbreaks" - there was more than one distinguishable outbreak. Cases of Zika had been detected earlier, but did not constitute an outbreak, since the virus has been endemic in Southeast Asia for many years (see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/858346). juanTamad ( talk) 06:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Judging by examples like Category:Disasters in Oceania [1], "in Oceania" is probably the suitable choice here. Alcherin ( talk) 10:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Agree. juanTamad ( talk) 15:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I just screwed up. I moved the talk page instead of the article page, by mistake. Now don't know where the article page is, might have to start over. juanTamad ( talk) 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Guess best option now is to ask an admin for help. I've asked an admin for help. juanTamad ( talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC). Looks like it is ok. reply

• Is the linking of 'neurological syndromes' to neurological disorders correct? No article seems to explicitly separate the syndromes from the other disorders. See [2]

There is no page specifically on the specific disorders, the ocular I think. So the link to neurological disorders is probably the best one, for now. juanTamad ( talk) 06:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Concurrent outbreak of chikungunya fever - I could not find the source supporting this so I removed it. See [3]

This should be included, notable feature. It was the same citation as previous sentence (Roth et al, 2014). juanTamad ( talk) 06:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Citation needed for the CDC travel alert for Tahiti, as the source previously given did not support this. See [4]

Alcherin ( talk) 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

A timelime page has started here. Should we go live with this page? Probably get more participation, which may be good or bad. juanTamad ( talk) 03:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I would say go for it, even if the lede still needs to be rewritten. Alcherin ( talk) 13:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I've placed a AFC request at the top of the page. juanTamad ( talk) 03:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I think the term outbreak usually is defined as being of the disease not the virus. Shall we call it "2013–2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania"? juanTamad ( talk) 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Judging by the articles on Ebola it does seem like the focus is usually on the disease, but 'virus' conforms with Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) as well as indicating the existence of large numbers of asymptomatic cases (i.e. no symptoms of Zika fever). Alcherin ( talk) 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Air travel has facilitated the spread of the virus, as travel times are within the incubation period of the disease.

Does the citation make reference specifically to Zika and its incubation period, and to the Pacific Islands and air travel? If not, this might be too vague for this article, although perhaps worth a mention on Zika virus. Alcherin ( talk) 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm planning to add more on this, researching the subject. Will delete for now. Here's an article that might be useful on this page: Experts Study Zika’s Path From First Outbreak in Pacific ^[1] juanTamad ( talk) 03:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

With a number of Zika outbreaks occurring in Oceania throughout 2015, it might be necessary to change the article title to include newer outbreaks of Zika. Outbreaks of Zika in Samoa, American Samoa and Tonga have already been mentioned under the Aftermath heading, and this document talks about an early 2015 outbreak in the Solomon Islands and a renewed outbreak in New Caledonia. Alcherin ( talk) 14:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm inclined to want to keep it as documentation of the period 2013-2014, an important predecessor of the outbreak (and source of the outbreak) in the Americas, rather than a "breaking news site" about ongoing and future outbreaks in the same area now, which may prove to be isolated events not necessarily worthy of a WP page. Have to wait and see. IMO, the outbreak "in the Americas" falls into the same category. It should be documented as an historical event by itself, not making the assumption that it will continue to spread globally and become indigenous (big difference from travel related cases) elsewhere. In other words, don't get caught up in the media hype. Whatever develops in the future outside of the Americas becomes a separate event. juanTamad ( talk) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a good map: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V19N41/Roth_Fig1.png Eurosurveillance is by the ECDC and I found this: "Except where otherwise stated, all manuscripts published after 1 January 2016 will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. You are free to share and adapt the material, but you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." I'll do it tomorrow (late here) but you'r welcome to go ahead of course. juanTamad ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

"published after 1 January 2016" - the article containing the map was published on 16 October 2014, so I am unsure if it qualifies for the CC-BY licence. Alcherin ( talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You're right, looks like it might not apply. I emailed them for permission to use it according to: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

If they respond in affirmative, I will upload and place on the page. juanTamad ( talk) 03:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This is the response: "Eurosurveillance is an open-access journal and we are happy for you to reuse the map as long as Eurosurveillance is acknowledged as the source, in the citation style indicated below:" I emailed back asking that they specifically agree to: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. No reply as yet. What do you think? Are we safe? Where can we ask? juanTamad ( talk) 08:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

They said they'd get back to me. juanTamad ( talk) 11:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) reply