User:Ebs5kp/sandbox

Article Draft Additions for Sweating Sickness (Bold symbolizes section to be added)
We will be reorganizing, editing, and adding information about sweating sickness to this article. Bold wording indicates an addition to the article. Regular text indicates information already present in the article. Underlined text indicates additions that have been made.

Sweating Sickness
Sweating sickness, also known as the sweats, English sweating sickness or English sweat or (Latin) sudor anglicus, was a mysterious and contagious disease that struck England and later continental Europe in a series of epidemics beginning in 1485. The last outbreak occurred in 1551, after which the disease apparently vanished. The onset of symptoms was sudden, with death often occurring within hours. Sweating sickness epidemics were unique compared to other disease outbreaks of the time. Where other epidemics were typically urban and long-lasting, cases of sweating sickness spiked and receded very quickly and heavily affected rural populations. Ebs5kp (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms
One attack did not produce immunity, and some people suffered several bouts before dying. The disease tended to occur in summer and early autumn. '''The disease typically lasted through one full day before recovery or death took place. ''' The disease tended to occur in summer and early autumn.19rtrudkin (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

'''Most visitors from other countries who contracted this sickness, were minorly affected. ''' 19rtrudkin (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Transmission
Transmission of the Sweating Sickness mostly remains a mystery, with only a few pieces of evidence in written works. The names that the peasantry called the disease lead to the possibility that it affected the rich much more often. An example of such a name "Stup-Gallant" shows the sarcastic nature. 19rtrudkin (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The greater number of people in London to witness the coronation of Henry VIII may have greatly increased the spread of this disease. 19rtrudkin (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cause
Commentators then and now put much blame on the sewage, generally poor sanitation, and contaminated water supplies of the time, which might have harboured the source of infection.

Relapsing fever has been proposed as a possible cause. This disease is spread by ticks and lice, and it occurs most often during the summer months, as did the original sweating sickness. However, relapsing fever is marked by a prominent black scab at the site of the tick bite and a subsequent skin rash.

A previously proposed theory suggested ergot poisoning but was quickly ruled out due to England having much less rye (the main cause of ergotism) than the rest of Europe. 19rtrudkin (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The sweating sickness occurred only in England during the first few outbreaks and saw no occurrence on the rest of the British Isles. 19rtrudkin (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

However, infection via human contact has been suggested in hantavirus outbreaks in Argentina. Modern day hantaviruses, unlike the sweating sickness, do not randomly disappear and can be seen affecting people on an isolated basis. 19rtrudkin (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fifteenth Century
Sweating sickness first came to the attention of physicians at the beginning of the reign of Henry VII, in 1485. During the last battle of the war of the roses, the sweating sickness had supposedly infected one of the armies leading to them to excuse themselves from the fight. 19rtrudkin (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

...The Annals of Connacht also record this obituary, and the Annals of the Four Masters record "an unusual plague in Meath" of 24 hours' duration; people recovered if they survived it beyond that 24-hour period. It did not attack infants or little children. Richard Grafton, an English chronicler, made mention of the sweating sickness of 1485 in his work Grafton's Chronicle: or History of England. He noted that the common treatment of the disease was to go immediately to bed at the first sign of symptoms; there, the affected person was to remain absolutely still for the entire 24-hour period of the illness, abstaining from any solid food and limiting water intake. Ebs5kp (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sixteenth Century
A second, less widespread outbreak occurred in 1507, followed by a third and much more severe epidemic i n 1517, a few cases of which may have also spread to Calais. In the 1517 epidemic, the disease showed a particular affinity for Englishmen; the ambassador from Venice at the time commented on the peculiarly low number of cases in foreign visitors. A similar effect was noted in the subsequent epidemic in 1528 when Calais (an English territory bordering France) experienced an outbreak of sweating sickness which did not spread into France. It was frequently fatal; half the population perished in some areas. Ebs5kp (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It reached epidemic proportions in 1528 during its fourth outbreak. It broke out in London at the end of May and speedily spread over the whole of England, save the far north. It did not spread to Scotland, though it did reach Ireland where Lord Chancellor Hugh Inge was the most prominent victim. The mortality rate was very high in London; Henry VIII broke up the court and left London, frequently changing his residence. In 1529 Thomas Cromwell lost his wife and two daughters to the disease. Its preference to mostly target young men and also to favor the wealthy or powerful earned the disease the nicknames "Stoop Gallant" or "Stoop Knave" (indicating that the proud were forced to 'stoop' and relinquish their proud status).  Ebs5kp (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Final Outbreak
The last major outbreak of the disease occurred in England in 1551. Though burial patterns in smaller towns in Europe suggest that the disease may have been present elsewhere first, the outbreak is recorded to have begun in Shrewsbury in April. It killed roughly 1,000 there, spreading quickly throughout the rest of England. It had all but ceased by October. It was more prevalent among younger men than in other groups, though this may have been due to greater social exposure of younger men. In response to the disease, Ebs5kp (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
I liked how you organized your sandbox, especially how you bolded sentences getting added to the article. Can you elaborate on why people in rural areas were more affected by sweating sickness compared to urban populations? It would be helpful if the claim was expanded on. The article mentions that the disease was spread by ticks and lice:  Did the general public know this? If not, when was this fact discovered? Another possible addition to the article could be discussing medical treatment and research conducted at the time, as well as how people attempted to prevent/treat sweating sickness. One thing I noticed about reading your article that could be applicable to mine is the socioeconomic distribution of disease infection. ~

Peer Review Response
Adding information on why the disease mostly targeted the rural population is a good point. Although we have little information about the actual cause of the virus, some theories point to the spread being due to mice or mouse droppings. Adding this would be useful to the reader. I’ll also point out that it states that rural areas were heavily affected compared to other epidemic diseases. Not that they were more affected than urban populations.

The article states that rheumatic fever was spread by ticks and lice, not that sweating sickness was spread by ticks and lice. We know very little about how sweating sickness was spread. Several sources state that an animal or pest is likely, but that person-to-person might have also been possible. Adding this information to the article, however, would be useful. Also clarifying the statement you referred to here would be a good revision because it does seem to imply that sweating sickness was spread by ticks and lice.

Adding information about treatment would be a very good addition. If I can find information about this it will certainly go into my additions. Good suggestion! Ebs5kp (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Myokgy Peer review: “The greater number of people in London to witness a coronation may have greatly increased the spread of this disease” This sentence does not flow with the previous sentence. What is the battle of the Roses? The structure of the article could perhaps be Cause, Symptoms, then the fifteenth and sixteenth century, then the final outbreak. In the symptoms section, there are no symptoms listed in this section, perhaps talk about the onslaught symptoms of the disease. The information you have in the symptoms section seem more fitting for a separate transmission section.

Under the cause section the first paragraph is confusing: Commentators then and now put much blame on the sewage, generally poor sanitation, and contaminated water supplies of the time, which might have harboured the source of infection. The names that the peasantry called the disease lead to the possibility that it affected the rich much more often.[2]19rtrudkin (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Add a transition word between sentences to make it clearer that the first sentence might not be true. Also, this paragraph seems to be a good fit under a transmission section. Also, under the causes section, more technical information can be provided to show what causes sweating sickness.

Under the 16th century it is called an epidemic, so how did it start? How did it end? What was the effect?

Under final Outbreak, was there a reason people thought that it affected younger wealthy men? How did that outbreak start? How did it end?

There is a lot of good information here, such as the information under symptoms, however, more details can be added to show the full scope of transmission, what is the science behind the disease? Why did the disease come and go? The most important thing you could possibly do would be to add a separate transmission section. I think that i could possibly add a symptoms section to my article.Myokgy (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)myokgy

Sources:
Evans, E. W. “The Sweating Sickness.” Science, vol. 8, no. 186, 1886, pp. 190–190. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1761788. Accessed 3 Oct. 2020.

Has a full heading devoted to sweating sickness?

Vaughan, Victor C. “The Service of Medicine to Civilization.” Science, vol. 40, no. 1018, 1914, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1640671. Accessed 3 Oct. 2020.

Brief mention of sweating sickness.

Dyer, A. "The English Sweating Sickness of 1551: An Epidemic Anatomized." Medical History, vol. 41, no. 3, 1997, pp. 362-384. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1044802/?page=1

Detailed article on sweating sickness. Commented on in the following article:

Taviner, Mark, Guy Thwaites, and Vanya Gant. "The English Sweating Sickness, 1485–1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?" Medical History, vol. 42, no. 1, 1998, pp. 96-98.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1043971/?page=1

Taviner, Mark, Vanya Gant, and Guy Thwaites. "The English Sweating Sickness, 1485 to 1551." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 8, 1997, pp. 580-582.

Detailed article on sweating sickness.

JOHN A. H. WYLIE, and LESLIE H. COLLIER. "The English Sweating Sickness (Sudor Anglicus): A Reappraisal." Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 36, no.

4, 1981, pp. 425-445.

A detailed article on the sweating sickness.

Heyman, P.; Simons, L.; Cochez, C. Were the English Sweating Sickness and the Picardy Sweat Caused by Hantaviruses? Viruses 2014, 6, 151-171.19rtrudkin (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4, October 1981, Pages 425–445, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/XXXVI.4.425 `19rtrudkin (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by ItsHelix (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
1.What does the draft do well


 * What was added to the article did a very good job of incorporating new and interesting information into the article. The information is very easy to understand and brings to light new sides of the topic.

2.What changes would I suggest


 * When I was reading it I was interested in some of the other things that were brought up such as the War of Roses, so if you could link those to an article already made it might make it easier to understand what you are adding.
 * Also under the cause section, you mention that the name the peasantry gave it could have a possibility to the cause, it might be good to add the nickname there.

3.What is the most important thing the author could do to improve the article.


 * Links to the external topics.
 * Also, if there was anything written about how the people tried to cure the sickness that would be good to add to the article as well.

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article.


 * The way you incorporated all the new information into the pre-existing article was good and made the overall article that much better. I was wondering how I was going to add to my article without it looking like notes someone had just put under what was already there, this is a good example of what to do for me.

Response to Peer Reviews
Due to the great responses given by the peer reviews, multiple changes have been brought to my attention that are greatly needed. A general consensus across all of the users is providing background information to the war of the roses. To respond to this, I will provide proper links to other articles in the section that covers the war of the roses. A short summary of the battle will also be provided to give more context. Another great idea is the addition of a transmission subject. This could properly sort some of the sentences that don't flow quite right into the same space. Under said transmission section, I will scour our sources to find more information that falls under the topic. Another consensus is the lack of information regarding the cause of the Sweating Sickness. The cause is not readily known and only guesses can be made but this section could use some reformatting to better announce the possible causes. A treatment page could greatly benefit the flow of the article even though little is known about it.19rtrudkin (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation Questions (History of Materials Science)

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant to the topic of History of Materials Science and nothing seems overly distracting; however, much of the early history of materials science seems underdeveloped.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There is not any notable bias or claims from the article, though there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the contributions of white males to materials science.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Certainly white men are linked in the article and virtually no mention of any other people groups. This may be an issue of limited sources, but should still be investigated.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Citation [2] has a missing url and is likely a physical encyclopedia cited as a website or something similar. Link from citation [16] is broken (404 not found).


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

There are no citations for the Iron Age and there are citations needed in several locations.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

There seems to be a lot of information missing in the Prehistory, Stone, Iron, Bronze, etc. Ages.


 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Not many conversations are being conducted, mostly editors stating the additions they have made or edits they've made correcting grammar and structure.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is a C-class article rated as Mid-Importance in History of Science and High-Importance in History.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We have talked relatively little about the History of Materials Science.

User:K8shep