User:Lopcal/Rotavirus vaccine/Aced 24 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lopcal
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lopcal/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - This content is not for a lead section
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, vaccines are very relevant to treating viruses.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, it appears the sources are within a reasonable range of years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The content seemed to be covered well. However, if anything were to be added, I would think about clarifying what "prophylactic interventions" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. This is not a common term and some clarification might be a good addition to the content. Also, it might be good to clarify what observations were made in the statement "There were three observations made in young children". The content states that these observations were made indicating that those with infections were asymptomatic, but does not explain what the observations were. Knowing the observations might help the reader understand why those who were infected were asymptomatic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, the content mentions how the quality of vaccines varies between low income and high income countries due to the availability of resources.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the content is presented in a very neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, there does not seem to be any bias claims or statements towards any particular positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - The only thing I think might be underrepresented is the mention of the current rotavirus vaccines that are available today. Other than that, I feel that nothing was overrepresented in any way.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. There is no language being used that would persuade readers in one direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all resources seem to be very reliable and mostly secondary sources reviewing the work of more primary studies.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources seem to be relevant to the topic and published in recent years. The oldest source used was from 1992 I believe.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors of different backgrounds and nationalities. Just reading the names, I didn't recognize very many woman names.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - For the most part, the content was to the point and easy to read. However, I felt that one of the sentences in the second paragraph might want to be reworded. The sentence is as follows: "Additionally, sublingual administration is another form of administration which confers more advantage over dermal administration due to the absence of keratinized cells in these tissues." The sentence might make sense, but a common person will not understand why the absence of keratinized cells would make a difference. Therefore, I think it might be advantageous to continue to explain why the absence of those cells would make a difference.
 * I also feel that this statement "Approximately 10% of the genome is controlled by circadian rhythms" at the end of the second paragraph needs to be explained more. What genome is being talked about here and how does this play a role in vaccine development?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There was a repeated phrase in this sentence in the second paragraph : "Microneedle patches are advantageous since this transdermal since this transdermal delivery involves the dense connected network of antigen presenting cells that lie below the stratum corneum".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes. I feel that the content is organized just fine.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - The draft does not include images


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. - The draft is not a new article'''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - I feel that this content will help improve the quality of this article. I think that including vaccine information is very important.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The information is organized. The information is relevant to the virus, and should be included in an article focused on a virus.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Fixing the grammatical error I pointed out and possibly adding a few clarifying statements. I also think that adding specific vaccines that are available right now for the virus also might be a good addition to the content.