Wikipedia:Peer review/Polio vaccine/archive1

Polio vaccine
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback regarding the possible submission of this article for consideration of FA status.

Thanks, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS), just a few thoughts for the moment:


 * I think the wording is too technical. Imagine a 7th or 10th grader reading this to get a first idea of what the vaccine is about.  If you use a term like viremia, linking to the article is great, but also add a brief explanation in the sentence, that way the reader doesn’t have to stop reading and visit another article to understand.  In some cases this is already done well, e.g. “using attenuated or weakened poliovirus.”  Also you could replace words like immunocompetent with simpler synonyms.


 * I’m not clear on why the section “Inactivated vaccine” is not a subsection of types.


 * I think it would be a good idea to give a sentence or two about what polio is and how it infects the individual in or near the lead. e.g. in the inactivated section it says it “protects the motor neurons”, so it might be good for the reader to understand that the motor neurons are what gets attacked.  This sentence is also a good opportunity to describe post-polio syndrome briefly.

Those are my comments for now, let me know what you think and I’ll come back with more later! delldot  &nabla;.  23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Such excellent suggestions! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your opinion on this. It is so nice to have a fresh pair of eyes take a look at this. When you read something for so long...well you stop seeing the forest and the trees! If you would like to come and take another look in a week or so, that would be great. If not, that is also fine. You have turned me to the right direction. The Very Best of Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Ping me whenever you've had a chance to address these and I can give it another look.  delldot   &nabla;.  23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Second look
 * Let's work on expanding the lead. The idea is for it to be a standalone mini-article for anyone who wants just a brief overview of the whole article.  So anything worth devoting a section to in the body will probably be worth a sentence or so in the lead.  A couple things that pop to mind are the contamination concerns, the risk of iatrogenic infection, and an explanation of the different types.  This is an introduction to the topic (experts don't need to read the encyclopedia!).


 * By the same token, anything mentioned in the lead should be covered in greater depth in the article, so the Syria thing should be addressed.


 * I think the History section needs some reworking. e.g. there's some repetition about Salk's work.  e.g. in 1952-53 it mentions "Jonas Salk's polio vaccine (a dead-virus injectable vaccine) had reached the market" and then in the next section it says "The first effective polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, but it would require years of testing", as though that's the first we're hearing about it. In my opinion those two sections should be merged, since they both mention Salk and they both mention 1953.  Maybe just "1950s"?


 * These sentences are great, but belong far nearer the beginning of the article, not in the Hx section. Maybe even in the lead: "In generic sense, vaccination works by priming the immune system with an 'immunogen'. Stimulating immune response, via use of an infectious agent, is known as immunization. The development of immunity to polio efficiently blocks person-to-person transmission of wild poliovirus, thereby protecting both individual vaccine recipients and the wider community."


 * I think the Hx subsections should be renamed to decades. And maybe add a couple sentences so it doesn't skip from the 60s to 1987.


 * The source by Sorem is marked unreliable, and I agree. The best sources for medical articles are literature reviews from respected journals, and I bet the FAC crowd will hold you to that with a topic this important and well-known.  If you can find a Cochrane review, that's pure gold.

Hope this is helpful, let me know when you've effected or rejected these suggestions! delldot  &nabla;.  16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)