User:Karsenpierce/Bombay plague epidemic/4everStudent22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Karsenpeirce/Bombay plague epidemic


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Karsenpierce/Bombay plague epidemic
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bombay plague epidemic
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bombay plague epidemic
 * Bombay plague epidemic

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello please see my peer review as follows:

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, but there are no reference links added to any of the statements made in the lead section. I am not quite sure I understand how to do any of this correctly by any means, but from the articles that I have seen it appears that almost every statement should have a reference attached.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not overly detailed.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. I can see that you took the original article in order to re write it. I think this is a good idea because the original article is missing a lot of references with the statements it makes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, two of your reference articles were fairly recent.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? The content seems neutral, it does not lean one way or another other than providing facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not believe the content is attempting to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, as I mentioned before, the current version of your Article draft is missing the references links for the statements written down. But I am sure we will all figure out how to do this properly in the coming future.
 * Are the sources current? Two of the publications are "fairly recent." I will have to check my notes but I believe the Professor said they should be somewhere within the last 5 years; I will look into that.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only the links throughout the main portion of the article work. The References section does not contain any links.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I believe the content could use more revision. Mainly for proof reading grammar mistakes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is one I would like to suggest. Instead of saying "Ineffective protocols administered furthering the spread." Perhaps you could say "Ineffective protocols further exasperated the spread."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are sections and the sections make sense.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? Yes, I believe the content adds more information that is relevant to the article that helps describe the various sections further.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think you could add links to your references in the reference section and throughout the article, as I mentioned earlier. You could also reexamine the structure and grammar with with the content is presented. Overall I think you guys are off on a good start for what seems to be an article that needs a lot of work because the references for the information that currently exists is almost nonexistent. Keep up the good work.