User talk:Mell4143/Mumps

Hello! Here's my peer review for your epidemiology section on Mumps:

First, I thought the article was well written overall. The way the points were structured was very coherent, which made for a pleasant and easy read. It stayed neutral the whole way through, too, which is good. There are a few wording/rearrangement suggestions I have that might make things a little clearer, but they're pretty minimal (as in nit-picky, not necessarily in number :)):

First sentence: "the morbidity of mumps was about 46- 726 per 100,000 cases" --> "... 46-726 cases per 100,000." Get rid of "of" in "Children of ages 5-7" in the second sentence. Broad critique: do a quick check for tense agreement. There are a few instances in here that seem to be in past tense with present verbs. "After vaccination, 99% of the cases have been reduced..." sounds weird. Maybe try "Since vaccination" or something? Try rewriting "...MMR vaccine is not effective over time, waning immunity is a contributing factor...". It seems a little messy right now. Maybe throw a semicolon in where the comma is? It's a borderline run-on sentence right now. The middle-end of the article where you talk about the 2016 outbreak: is it all the same outbreak? You say 150 outbreaks in 2015-2017 in one sentence, then say 75% of the 150 in 2016 in another, then reference the 2015-2016 outbreak in the next. I don't know if you can remedy this, but maybe try to clarify? Second, all of the sources you chose seem credible and all the links worked (which is always good- I had some trouble with mine at first). Most of them were up to date, which is great. The one from 1995 is concerning. I recognize it's a period summary and its inclusion is beneficial to the article, but the fact that it's over 20 years old is a red flag. As much of a bummer it would be to nix it, it might help with the credibility. Additionally, not all sentences have a citation. I don't know if they all have to be cited, but I'd rather you double-check rather than get a plagiarism flag, you know?

Something in your article that I really wish I could find (more easily) with mine is reported outbreaks. The ones you identified worked really well to show the scope of Mumps and what has been done to cut back on the effect. TLDR, it was a good inclusion. That'll have to be something I try to include before publishing!

Again, nice job on the first draft. It's very strong as it stands right now, and I believe it will make a good addition to the main article.

Bettchlk618 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

 * Thanks for the feedback, I will take it into account as I edit my draft.––Mell4143 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)