User talk:Ilovesushi16/Attenuated vaccine/Jmylaughter Peer Review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I thought the article was relevant and provided sufficient information about attenuated vaccines. I thought it was important to understand both the history and science behind attenuated vaccines in which your article had both.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article maintained a neutral tone and was not heavily biased. A discussion about controversies with the use of attenuated vaccines would be a plus.

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 Is any information out of date?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?

There were appropriate and reliable references for most of the information in the article except the administration section of the article.