User talk:Emb47/sandbox

Peer Review
Is the article clear and understandable? -Overall the article was very clearly written and easy to understand. One suggestion is to try and clean up the prevention section. The discussion of the vaccine approach is hard to follow, which I think that is mostly due to sentence structure so it should be an easy fix. (i.e. "The vaccine approach has more potential to do so since vaccine formulations can target multiple subtypes of the bacteria.")

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? -All sections of the article seem equally and appropriately weighted, except for the history section. The history section is one of the longest sections and the level of detail included is probably beyond the scope of the article.

Is there anything that distracted you? -I did not find anything in particular to be distracting in this article.

Would it be understandable to a non-medical person? -Overall I thought that the article was well written for the intended audience of laypersons and the images of the different rashes are great. There are a couple of sections in the article that I think would be difficult to understand for a non-medical person. -A few examples: In the signs and symptoms section, the dermatology nomenclature may be hard to follow (i.e. petechiae). In the same section instead of saying "inguinal and axillary regions" maybe just use groin and armpit. -The pathophysiology/microbiology section is super technical but I think that is largely unavoidable. -Differential diagnosis section. The dermatology terms (i.e. exanthem, morbiliform, maculopapular) would be hard to understand, but the wikilinks provided gives the reader the ability to easily clarify.

Is the article neutral and balanced? -the article does appear to be neutral and well balanced

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -No

Is the supporting evidence from unbiased sources? -Yes

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -none

Is the article supported by reliable evidence? -Yes, all reference appear to be from well known journals or publishers

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? - Antibiotic resistance section: "Previously, observed resistance rates had been 10–30%; the increase is likely the result of overuse of macrolide antibiotics in recent years." -History section: there are entire paragraphs that don't have a single reference cited.

Are the citations from publicly available sources? -A number of the books cited don't include an ISBN or other clickable link or easier reference but they could be accessed if the general public was so inclined.

Does the article paraphrase or plagiarize? -None that I am aware of

Is the cited evidence current? -Yes, a majority of the references are from within the last 5 years.

Other -I made a handful of minor spelling/grammar changes and added internal wiki links for some of the technical words used.

JSShin (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)