Talk:Wash your hands or else spread superbug E. coli, say scientists

Academic attribution

It's important to those involved to get attribution to schools right. Although Professor Livermore, apparently the lead author and corresponding author, is at the University of East Anglia, lots of the others are not. NYP does tolerably well on this point, correctly describing just Livermore as being at U East Anglia, then referring to "Livermore and his colleagues in the UK". The Guardian's approach is not as good, but not awful: they describe the whole as "new research from the University of East Anglia", but then specifically mention some coauthors whom they clearly describe as not from there. Best of all, EurekAlert! attributes to "a consortium including the University of East Anglia". I'll see what I can do. --Pi zero (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4525041 [Passed]

Revision 4525041 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See the above remarks on school attribution. Perhaps something to include when upgrading the attribution essay (clearly needed since the neutrality essay covers attribution better). The nature of the recommended regimen seemed mightily important to include for value-to-the-reader; I hesitated to add it as reviewer, but just atm I had no confidence there would be another reviewer to sight it if I published and added it after publication; with another reviewer handy I'd have done it that way. Treating it as a clarification, I used the most elementary phrasing I could see; honestly, the sentence could use further improvement, but if I'm the only reviewer around I can't be the one to do it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4525041 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See the above remarks on school attribution. Perhaps something to include when upgrading the attribution essay (clearly needed since the neutrality essay covers attribution better). The nature of the recommended regimen seemed mightily important to include for value-to-the-reader; I hesitated to add it as reviewer, but just atm I had no confidence there would be another reviewer to sight it if I published and added it after publication; with another reviewer handy I'd have done it that way. Treating it as a clarification, I used the most elementary phrasing I could see; honestly, the sentence could use further improvement, but if I'm the only reviewer around I can't be the one to do it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.