Talk:Transmission of COVID-19/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 19:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Will review this over the next few days. Aircorn (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. I should/may be able to give a review a bit of time. --Almaty^✉✎ 14:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry what do you mean? I don't really want to review an article on a maybe. Aircorn (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I can give it a lot of time from Sunday June 18. --Almaty^✉✎ 12:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok cool. Will look at doing it over the next few nights. Aircorn (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out this review, but based on an initial skim read I think the effects on vaccination is an important section that will need to be expanded to meet the comprehensive part of the GA criteria.Tom (LT) (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tom (LT):. Sorry for the delay. I have been real busy and don't have as much time as I thought. Would you like to take over this? Aircorn (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn happy to. @Almaty are you still around? I should have the review within a day or two. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes sure thanks User:Tom (LT) I can take a look at the review. In regard to effect of vaccination, there isn't enough science out there atm, certainly not a good enough review for Wiki. --Almaty🦢^✉✎ 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• I know you've had to wait some time before this review, but it is unfortunately not meeting the criteria for GA.
• Firstly, I want to recognise that you've made a large number of contributions to this fairly high quality article which is of a very important topic, so I want to thank you and acknowledge your efforts :).
• That said the major problem is that the article contains a number of sentences or phrases directly matching WHO sources. I used Earwig's copyvio check to identify these
• There are also very few areas that lack citations ("which is why it can be useful to let incoming packages sit untouched for a few days before opening them to reduce the risk of contracting the disease. ") and ("Kissing carries high risk of COVID-19 transmission due to high levels of virus in saliva." - probably it's going to have a significant risk of respiratory transmission at the same time)
• Additionally I don't think the article covers the entire area. I think controversy is addressed but I think (in brief) a paragraph or subsection on prevention is warranted (with a hatnote to the prevention article), and certainly there needs to be more coverage of the effect of vaccination e.g. does it eliminate or reduce transmission in what vaccine groups and is transmission associated with symptoms in vaccinated people. More could also be included about what symptoms (e.g. cough, respiratory distress) increase the likelihood of transmission as compared to symptoms that don't
• Lastly overall with regard to structure, recognising this may be the result of lots of discussions, I found that it was good but could be improved. I would move controversies into a separate section at the end of the article. I found the way transmission and prevention were covered sometimes a bit intermixed and might benefit from a clearer separate e.g. these are the modalities of transmission, these are strategies that reduce this risk (this could be me; in areas I edit such as anatomy we use a clear division between elements rather than mix them up).
• I really liked the examples provided as they did help me understand the article's content

Hope that helps. Thanks again for your edits :). Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)