User:104.167.172.176/sandbox

Article Evaluation "Black Plague"

This article was very well written which was apparent when I went to view the sources of the article and it stated that only established users could make edits. This is a very important topics due to the effects it had so I understand why this article is protected from just anyone being able to post. Everything in this article is relevant to the topic, even providing additional information that was not found in the textbook such as the name of the bacterium that caused the plague including DNA evidence to support that claim. i couldn't point out any information that wasn't relevant to this topic. In addition to being very informational, the article was not biased whatsoever and simply presented facts about the plague, its origin, and its path. Although, some people believe the plague was not spread by rodents and was spread by humans so this may cause a bit of controversy depending on what you believe. However, because there was evidence to support the claim, I found it to be completely unbiased. They even went as far to present alternative theories to the origin on the plague, making it more a factual text than a heavily swayed opinion.

The article is featured in several WikiProjects, ranging from medicine, to deaths, to European History. It was rated a B-class which means there is definitely room for improvement although it is of high caliber. I would consider it to be a very significant article to Wikipedia and a great one to analyze.

Each section contained an equal amount of material and enough to make it credible and significant to the rest of the article. What I enjoyed most about the article was that many ideas were further elaborated in the upcoming sections that I was to read. The references links led me to several scientific journals explaining experiments performed to verify the origin of the plague. Every link I opened took me straight to a journal or article page of a reliable source. I would definitely put my trust into these articles and feel confident believing their information. There was no clear bias in any of them so I am definitely willing to believe these articles.

The only source of discrepancy that I observed from the talk page is what I expected, the source of the plague. Some people provided links to articles claiming that the plague was spread by humans and not rats. Although, when I clicked the links I wasn't quite sure to believe these articles over the ones I had read previously in the references section. Perhaps this topic can be updated slightly due to new technologies and new findings on whether or not rats were the true origin.

Wikipedia definitely goes more in depth about the subject than what we covered in class. This was expected due to its lasting effects. I found the sections on reoccurrences interesting since it's not something we necessarily covered in class. I was surprised to know that there were a few more outbreaks after the initial one. The question that I would like to ask is "What were some of the cures doctors attempted to use?". That was a topic that I didn't see covered anywhere in the article and I would like to know what they did to try to combat the plague.