User talk:Lescrose/sandbox

Erik Rodahl's Peer Review of your draft
Erik Rodahl’s Review ls Leschisin’s Sandbox

1. General Revisions and thoughts on the content of your Sandbox

Introduction Section You call this your intro but I think it is actually your Cause Section, I might edit that.

Diagnosis Section I felt this section jumped around quite a bit, and I felt it could have been a bit more focused. -I specifically felt the first half of the diagnosis section could be more clear and could have a better structure. It was a little confusing to me.

In this section you wrote comprising- I think you meant to write compromising.

Epidemiology section In order to perform useful studies relating to any disease, these components are key to ensure accuracy. -My thoughts on this -I think this statement is unclear and should be deleted or revised.

Incubation periods as long as Lassa fever may affect spatial clustering of the disease. The understanding of the spatial clustering for this disease is still in development as a lack of easy-available diagnosis, limited public health surveillance infrastructure, and high clustering of incidence near high intensity sampling make for an incomplete look at the impact of Lassa in this region [2]. -My thoughts on this -What do you mean by spacial clustering? -Why would one care about the spacial clustering of this disease?

The spread of the virus is due primarily to the nature of the infected host that spreads the Lassa virus. The Mulimammate rat can quickly produces a large numbers of offspring, tends to colonize human settlements increasing the risk of rodent-human contact, and is found throughout the west, central and eastern parts of the African continent -My thoughts -Re-Read this it. I think it could be worded a bit better and there are also some gramatical errors.

Once the rat host has been affected, it will excrete the virus throughout the rest of its lifetime, creating ample opportunity for exposure [1]. This rat is also a known food source in West Africa, and the risk of hunting and consuming an infected animal increases the risk of infection for those individuals. -My thoughts -affected- I think you should say infected? -how does this rat excrete this virus? -I think you should more thoughtfully phrase the section “the risk of hunting and consuming an infected animal increases the risk of infection for this individuals.” I certainly know what you mean but I think that could be better.

Research in Guinea showed a towfold increase risk of infection for those living in close proximity to someone with infection symptoms within the last year [1]. -My thoughts -This needs revising- “twofold”

Lassa has been linked to high risk areas near the western and eastern extremes of West Africa. These areas cannot be well defined by any known biogeographical or environmental breaks -Is it just me or do these two statements conflict with one another.

Twenty to Thirty cases have been described in Europe, cited as being caused by importation -Don’t capitalize thirty, I might describe importation a bit more if this were my draft.

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of your Draft Strengths I felt your paper was filled with good non biased information. I felt I learned some good facts about Lassa Fever, where it is found, and some of the problems they have diagnosing Lassa Fever.

Weaknesses I felt your draft could really be re-read as well as revised to make it more clear. I felt you had good information but it was overall a bit unclear sometimes because of a lack of structure as well as a handful of grammatical errors. I feel if you went through and did some work to improve sentence structure and overall structure that your draft would become much better and would be more clear, which could benefit the reader.

I think the most important thing for you is to revise this article and improve structure, grammar, and clarity.

3. What did I learn that I could apply to my article? I learned you should try to be clear and have specific focus when writing. Another thing I learned is I should do more research for my article and look at more sources to increase balance (try to use more than 2).

4. Was the Content Neutral? -I would say it was neutral.

5. Was Coverage Balanced? I would say yes. That being said it seems you only used 2 sources, you should maybe consider looking at more sources to have a more balanced article.

6. Were Sources Reliable? I would say so, they seem reliable and unbiased. Both sources were reviews and they both reviewed a large number of sources which I think is good. I also think they are both secondary sources as well which is also good.

ErikENPHMajor (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Erik Rodahl