User:ICapt.NemoI/Monkeypox virus/Nathalieslebreton Peer Review

At the time I peer reviewed the article (10/05), the sandbox draft only contained 3 sentences and 1 reference, so I peer reviewed the article (Monkeypox virus) itself. In regard to the sandbox draft, the content appears relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Furthermore, the image in the sandbox draft is well-captioned and enhances the depth of information of the article.

In my opinion, the lead focuses too much on the Orthopoxvirus genus and Monkeypox virus’s relation to the variola virus. The lead would better contribute to the article if it introduced the major sections of the article to come. For instance, the lead could include one sentence about the mechanism of transmission of the virus, which is discussed in detail in the section entitled "transmission".

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and includes up-to-date information, such as a reference to the 2022 monkeypox outbreak. However, given the extent of recent research on the virus, a plethora of new research could still be incorporated into the article. The article does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. However, I believe the article should address the high rates of transmission of the monkeypox virus observed in men who have sex with men.

The article appears neutral without heavy bias toward a particular position. Again, I think the high rate of transmission between men who have sex with men needs to be included in the article. I believe the exclusion of this information was an oversight not an attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

The article references 15 sources. The sources include a mix of articles published in academic journals and on the websites of reputable health organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The authors may need to consult more academic journals in order to gather more in-depth information.

The article does not have any glaring grammar mistakes; however, I think a proofread could improve the flow and diction of the article.

The article includes 4 well-captioned images that are relevant to the topic. Furthermore, the images enhance the quality of the article, and they all appear to adhere to copyright regulations.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)