User:J.Sallee,UCSF/sandbox

peer review part 1:
Overall, the article appears improved. The lead section is pretty easy to understand and has a nice synopsis of the antibody. The coverage appears balanced and the content is presented in a neutral manner. The references also appear to be reliable. Based off the goals outlined above, I would say the group has achieved its goals for overall article improvement.

The structure could be improved by moving history after the lead section for a better flow of information. moving history before PK would also introduce RSV-IGIV before it is mentioned so the reader would have an idea what the antibody was being compared to. Additional improvements could be made to the cost section by determing the cost of the drug from manufacturers as opposed to cost based off QALY as that is not easy to understand. An easy clarification for people less versed in medical terminology would be to write monoclonal antibody instead of Mab.