User:Fernaldy0917/Vaccine storage/Whatischemistry Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Fernaldy0917


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Fernaldy0917/Vaccine storage - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Vaccine storage - Wikipedia

Lead

 * Lead is updated to reflect the history, recommended storage and requirements, and types of storage.
 * The first sentence does introduce and properly describe vaccine storage.
 * The lead does have mention of history, storage temperature, vaccine storage and handling requirements,
 * Unfortunately, there is no mention of the year 1996 in the history section, but it is mentioned in the lead.
 * The lead does have good introductory information. I don't think that there needs to be more added but there can be mention of how different storage methods improve vaccine shelf life.

Content

 * Added content is relevant to article. There is a very comprehensive list of the different type of vaccine storage.
 * Content appears up to date. There is of course mention of Covid-19.
 * Information appear to be comprehensive. The author covered the history of storage, the reasons to store at certain temperatures or handle vaccines a certain way, as well as types of storage and specific ways vaccines are stored.
 * For the equity gap coverage, the article briefly mentions the need for more accessible vaccine handling in underdeveloped countries.

Tone and Balance

 * Content appears to be neutral. I don't see bias. There is a sense of persuasion that vaccines need to be stored at certain temperatures and handled in a certain way.

Sources and References

 * Few sentences are not immediately cited. Citations should be added to those sentences to be clear that the information is from a source.
 * Sources are current and thorough. There is a diversity of authors.
 * The links work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * I am not sure that the images are necessary, but they definitely added visual appeal.
 * The images are well-captioned.
 * The images appear to be available for free use.
 * The image make the article less boring.

Overall impressions

 * My overall impression is that I am impressed by this article's information. The sections complement one another very well.

Whatischemistry (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)