User:Heather Rood/sandbox

= Bubonic Plague Article =

Start Drafting your Article
The Plague of Justinian is said to have been "completed" in the middle of the 8th century.

Rats were an amplifying factor to the Bubonic Plague due to their common association with humans as well as the nature of their blood. Their rat's blood allowed the rat to withstand a major concentration of the plague. When the rat ultimately dies from the plague, the parasitic fleas are forced to find another host. Ultimately this host becomes humans where the regurgitated infected blood of the rats infect the new human host.

Substantial research has been done regarding the origin of the plague and how it traveled through the continent. The research regarding this pandemic has greatly increased with technology. Through archaeo-molecular investigation, researchers have discovered DNA of plague bacillius in the dental core of those that fell ill to the plague. Other evidence for rats that is currently still being researched consists of gnaw marks on bones, predator pellets and rat remains that were preserved in situ. This research allows individuals to trace early rat remains to track the path traveled and in turn connect the impact of the Bubonic Plague to specific breeds of rats.

Answering Questions for Bubonic Plague
-Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything is relevant to the articles topic. There is a lot of information within the article. Nothing distracted me and it looks like a very well put together start.

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

The article is neutral and not biased in a certain way. I think some things need to be added within the article because some sections are more represented than others.

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

The citation's links do work and there are a lot located within the article. I think there are some sources that are not reliable and need to be switched out for more up to date information.

-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?

No, there are many parts of the article that need to be sourced. The sources are appropriate, reliable and neutral for the most part. Most of the information comes from reputable articles or other well written wikipedia sites. Some sources need to be updates

-Is any information out of date?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

Some of the information is out of date, but a section about other means of transmission needs to be addressed. There also needs to be a section about the origin of the plague and more descriptive pictures There should also be a section about long term effects of the epidemics and a timeline of the events that occurred.

-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?

There are quite a few recommendations on what to add located on the Talk Page and some sources that I need to check out.

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

The article is rated a B-class article and is a part of a few WikiProjects.

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

Origin of the plague and Climate

 * Potential sources to look at:
 * Michael McCormick "Rats, Communications, and Plague: Toward an Ecological History" The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2003, vol. 34 No. 1, pp 1-25



How it caused major pandemics in the past but not recently. (Treatments? New ways of containment?)

 * Potential sources to look at:
 * John Theilmann and Frances Cate "A Plague of Plagues: The Problem of Plague Diagnosis in Medieval England" The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2007, vol. 37 No. 3, pp 371-393
 * John Travis "Model Explains Bubonic Plague's Persistence" Society for Science & the Public, Oct. 21, 2000, Vol. 158, p. 262

Other means of transmission

 * (thought to also have been transmitted by respirated droplets)
 * Potential sources to look at:
 * Michael McCormick "Rats, Communications, and Plague: Toward an Ecological History" The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2003, vol. 34 No. 1, pp 1-25

The connection between the bubonic plague and the pneumonic plague

 * Potential sources to look at:
 * Philip Norrie "A History of Disease in Ancient Times: More Lethal than War" 2016

Evaluating Wikipedia Assignment
-Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything is relevant to the articles topic. There is a lot of information regrading Washington and Adams and less about the progress of the epidemic. There is no timeline discussed or progression of the disease. Something that distracted me is the lack of depth within the events that occurred itself.

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

The article is neutral and not biased in a certain way. Once more information is added overall continuity will be present throughout the article. I think there is just a lack of knowledge and research on certain aspects of the epidemic. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article talks a lot of the continental army and not as much about the British. Both were effected by the epidemic and both should be equally represented. There is also no medical personelle mentioned through the entirety of the article and I would like to ensure that their actions are recognized.

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

After the first section there needs to be more sources added throughout. The sources support the claim and are needed to further understand the contents of the article.

-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?

No, there are many parts of the article that need to be sourced. The sources that are precent are appropriate and reliable and neutral. Most of the information comes from reputable articles or other well written wikipedia sites.

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

None of the information is out of date, but a section about the British forces and how the epidemic effected them should be added. There should also be a section about long term effects of the epidemic and a timeline of the events that occurred.

-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?

There is very small comments about marginal things within the article. Some sources to check out are also located there.

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

The article is rated a start-class article and is a part of a few WikiProjects.

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

Peer Reviewing Article
What did the draft do well?

I really think that the timeline idea will work well with this article and the contents within it. It will help to make the information more clear as well as easier to follow. There was a lot of really good information that is directly applicable to the article. There is also a few sources so the information is being gathered from different locations to help make the article more accurate.

What changes would you suggest the author to apply to the article?

The sentence where "There were only two districts, or as the people of Los Angeles refer to, as ghetto, where Hispanics lived" is said is a little hard to follow. I would reword this to make the information ore clear. Where are the sections going to be located within the article? With regard to the timeline section, will there be a little bit of information within the timeline then more in depth further down within the article or will all the information be included within the timeline. I think that if you put all of the information within the timeline, it may get overcrowded and defeat the purpose of condensing it. I would recommend rewording some of the sections within the background section because they were sometimes hard to follow.

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

Reorganization is necessary but I think the changes that are going to be made will help a lot with that. Maybe provide a section of what are some things that have changed due to this outbreak. Harsh thoughts and actions towards Hispanics? Increased sanitary practices? Restrictive practices against Hispanics? Who did the outbreak effect the most (only Hispanics or other ethnicities as well)?

What could be applicable to your own article?

I really liked the idea of having a timeline and I may consider bringing that idea into my article to help organize the events that occurred since my article is over a very long time frame.