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

Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I agree. It sounds like it was written by someone employed by the agency trying to sell its high points. I have added sections to the article and removed material on Rick Bright already covered on his Wikipedia article page. Material on this whistleblower complaint has been moved to a new section. I have also added many references and factual, historical information. BARDA does unusual (and good) work, so it is difficult for some accounts to not sound like a press release. I have begun to try to make the existing language sound more neutral. I believe this issue can be resolved by adding secondary sources. Abelian (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page on the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority sounds like , ie reads like, a press release. Let's fix that. Richard8081 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: "BARDA’s Strategic Science Team helps bring innovation to our programs. This team is the focal point for discussions with the creators of new technologies, ideas, and products. Together with the program managers, they seek ways to integrate innovative science into the development and production of medical countermeasures." Pretty convincing example of how you can definitely be a little TOO slick, and your believability -- authenticity even --- just vanishes like the fog. Trouble is, this is the Government speaking, so you really have to wonder how this upbeat tone even creeps into the prose. I guess "medical countermeasures" will always carry a sinister overtone, so you have to coat it with rah-rah to get any kind of buy-in from a fearful public. The anthrax scare was, after all, more than just a scare-- several people died!Richard8081 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge sections of this article are directly copied from news articles and other wiki articles. That needs to change.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...this is a massive government corporation that dolls out billions in research funds to civilian and government labs. It has notability from mentions in news articles alone: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=BARDA&tbm=nws

If you think this article should be fixed, okay. But it deserves to exist and I'd love to help you fix it.-Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the 2010 "promotional content" tag is no longer relevant and I am removing it. Also added more content today to expand and improve this article. --Paultimothyjones714 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rick Bright should be a separate page. See [1], [2], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Woundful (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see if he actually files the whistleblower complaint, as promised. If he does, the story will develop, and it will be notable enough for creating the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the authority’s role as a sort of venture capital fund within the federal government and its role in getting important but ordinarily not very profitable medications/vaccines, it would be nice to see the article’s quality and importance rise on Wikipedia’s scales. It could benefit from help from an insider who understancs how to write factual, neutral, nonadvocacy articles. Abelian (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added historical information on the agency’s formation, legislative history, budget and responses to pandemic and biomedical threat. Abelian (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not read like an encyclopedia article. It reads like a summary of recent events. Leadership should not be the first topic, but rather the history leading up to the agency formation and/or any preceeding or sister agencies. Relevant topics as well would be the organizational structure, relation to HHS, NIH, CDC, employees, budget (with relation to each year), manner of funding, how industry projects are funded, public-private partnerships and so on. This is an encyclopedia article, not a news report. Also relevant would be comparison with and relations with international health agencies

The item referring to Dr. Bright is relevant, but this should be contextualized to 2020, under say a topic such as “Controversies” (say). This information should be referenced in a factual, neutral, apolitical way. Phrases like “most recent” are inappropriate as they will soon no longer be accurate. Abelian (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Paultimothyjones714 (talk · contribs), Stephenthrompson (talk · contribs), Swunalightyear (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]