User:A3C7/Human polyomavirus 2/EthosNap Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? A3C7
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:A3C7/Human polyomavirus 2

Content
The addition of the virus' life cycle was a great choice, because that is super important! It is so true that knowing the virus' life cycle is important for understanding the virus, how its transmitted, and how we can prevent it. In this way this addition is extremely relevant. One of the sources used is from 1992, which is not very up to date, but the second source is from 2010 which is more up to date. It might be beneficial to find a more up to date source for the 1992 article if possible. Also, some possible additions to the paragraph could include why the replication cycle is slow (if there is a reason), and what types of polymerases etc. are used in the process (if any). Overall, great additions!

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral and there are no claims that are biased or persuasive. The information is very developed, and you could even develop the information further if you wanted, but it might be nice to leave it as it is at the same time because it is very concise and easy to understand, which is great for a Wikipedia article.

Sources and References
Although you cited the paragraph at the end, I think it would be good to cite each sentence throughout the paragraph so it is clear what information came from where. The 4th source is a reliable secondary source because it is a literature review from PubMed. It is written by 5 authors, and it has a very long list of references which is great. I can't tell if the authors come from a diverse spectrum. It was published in 1992, so it is not necessarily current and it might be good to find a more current source if possible. The 5th source is also a reliable secondary source because it is a literature review from PubMed. It is only written by 2 authors which is not as good, but it also has a very long list of references which makes up for it. The authors don't necessarily appear to be diverse. Both of the links work, and both of the sources appear thorough with a large range of relevant information as well. Because you included more sources at the bottom, if you could include those somehow that would be great too, in terms of broadening the sources of information.

Organization
Overall, the information is very clear but some sentences may need to be reworded in order to flow better. I don't think this statement needs to be included: "(also known as John Cunningham virus, or JCV)" because this was already stated in the article in the lead sentence. Also, these statements: "The next step in the lifecycle is to be transported into the cell. Human polyomavirus 2 uses the method of clatherin-dependent endocytosis in order to achieve this step." could probably be combined into something along the lines of: "The virus then enters the cell through clatherin-dependent endocytosis." In this sentence, "These can be either alpha 2,3 and alpha 2,6 linked sialic receptors," I would replace and with or. Other than that, I don't see any spelling errors and the information makes sense sequentially. I would also add a section heading such as "Life Cycle" or "Replication Cycle" at the top.

Overall impressions
This section will definitely improve the overall quality of the article! It will be more complete with the addition of the virus' life cycle, which is extremely important. I was impressed by the organization and the way you summarized the whole cycle so precisely in simple steps. The strength of this paragraph is conciseness! The intro statement to the paragraph is very good and it leads you into the information with an interesting fact. I like how it is outlined in steps that are easy for you to follow and visualize.

Overall, I would recommend citing each sentence, and fixing up the syntax a bit. You could even go into more depth for each step, but that might just be me as I said earlier it might be better simple.

Awesome work!!