User talk:Ilovesushi16/Attenuated vaccine

Peer Review of Attenuated Vaccine Article
Overall great job with the edits. Lead portion was done concisely and is presented in a neutral manner. You were able to avoid bias and at the same time reflect important points of the article. ClinicalSciences (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review (Youssef)

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? - Yes, the contents of the article is relevant to the topic of attenuated vaccines. The flow of the article was beneficial to me as a reader.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - The article appears to be neutral with the edits made. A discussion emphasizing certain points regarding attenuated vaccines from different perspectives could be a plus.

3. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? - Yes, the facts utilized in this article had supporting references from various sources. The references appear to be reliable and are primarily cited from journal articles. An updated list of references from a more recent time period would be a plus.