User:Karsenpierce/Bombay plague epidemic/Bmeade08 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Karsenpierce and User: Tren10 m


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karsenpierce/Bombay_plague_epidemic?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bombay plague epidemic

Lead
The proposed changes to the lead read more like the beginning of an essay than a Wikipedia article. Although the rest of the additions are great, and add more context to the lead. I would suggest leaving the current intro as is and then adding your additions to it rather than completely redoing it. Finally, I would also introduce some of the main topics that will be covered in your Content sections.

Content
The content additions that you guys have proposed are definitely relevant and give needed statistics and context. Although adding some more topic sections would definitely make the article stronger. An example of a section to add could be "Pathology" wherein you talk about the patterns of infection, who was infected, and how it spread. Or another section that could be added is "Response" or "Effects" where you explain the after effects of the plague on the city and the culture of the city. If you are struggling for more topics for section I recommend looking at other articles about epidemics and pulling ideas from them one what you should cover. One last thing that I think you guys should consider in your additions is the inclusion of linked text to other pages which lead to a specific word or topic that the reader may not know of. I find those help me quite often when reading an article.

Organization
Overall its hard to really critique this part of your draft since its not really put together yet, but I do have some recommendations based on the current state of the original article. Namely I would suggest tying to balance the different sections and how much you discuss in each because as it stands now the article looks lopsided with the "Detection" section taking up the majority of the article. Although if one section truly does require more explanation than an other then so be it, but I would at least try to make sure that too much time is not spend on one particular section. Other than that I think it's pretty easy to read and should be a great article if organized properly.

Miscellaneous
I have just a few quick miscellaneous things to cover. First being that I think the sources look both reliable and relevant. Second, I think that your article would benefit from having some sort of image relating to the area in which the outbreak occurred. For example, if you could find a map of the area that would make it a lot easier for the reader to get an idea of how this outbreak occurred.

Conclusion
Overall I think you guys are on the right track and this should be a really interesting article to see completed. As long as us you continue to add some more content and perhaps rework a few of the current ones with the suggestions above you will be good to go.