User talk:Asp2181/Bordetella pertussis/COR9 Peer Review

Peer review
The Lead has been updated and includes a concise and clear introductory sentence. It does not include a brief description of the major sections. It includes information not mentioned in other places in the article. It is concise.

Content is relevant to the topic and appears pretty up to date, but there are some citations from the early 1900s which could be outdated. It would be helpful to supplement to information in this section with up-to-date material. That is the only content that does quite belong. The article mentions that recipients of the DTaP vaccine accidentally face increased vulnerability, but other than that doesn't really address equity gaps.

Tone is neutral.

New content is backed up by a reliable source and reflected citations. Some sources that are outdated could be supplemented with newer information. Sources take information from scientific articles/journals.

Content is well-written. No errors spotted.

There are no images present.

Content definitely improves the original article. Content is concise, well-written, and neutral. Content could be improved using imagery and incorporating more current information. COR9 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)