User:Keanmc/Black Death/Sarag720 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Keanmc
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Black Death

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, there has been no updates.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I actually do not think the lead sentence is that strong. It is a little vague so it could potentially be reworded to make it stronger. It is a bit obvious that the Black Death was a deadly pandemic so it could be a bit redundant.  The sentence is also a little vague.  Maybe put in a number of how many people died in the first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does contain a contents box, but there are no sentences that connect all the subjects in the content box- specifically DNA evidence and symptoms.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not contain extra information; however, I think it gets too specific in the transmission in the lead and that specificity should be saved for the subheading. I do not think the picture of the map is good for the lead picture. I think the map is really good for the transmission subheading but there should be a different picture for the lead picture. Maybe something of the symptoms.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel like the lead needs less about the geographical spread of the disease and perhaps make that its own subheading since a lot of the lead is focused around that.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead has too much of the geographical component when there is only a little section of geographical transmission in the article. I also think the first and third sentence are worded poorly so they could be reworded. The picture is also redundant. You have another picture of a map that shows the same information right below it so maybe find a better picture that shows the symptoms of the black death.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No; there is a CNN article that has been noted in the talk page that is contradicts old data. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/23/asia/plague-china-history-intl-hnk-scli/index.html It is reference number 11 and is used in the lead. The CNN article states the plague could not have started in China like the lead states.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The Third plague pandemic, Late 19th-century, and Fatality rate sections are all very short and could have more research. If you read the CNN article above it says that the second plague could have originated in China so you could add information about the second spread of the plague.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this does not relate to Wiki's equity gaps.

Content evaluation
The Recurrences sub heading could be a potential section to add a lot of information. The Third plague pandemic, Late 19th-century, and Fatality rate sections do not have a lot of information so this could be a great section to work on for the project. Try and fix the misinformation using the CNN article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes; there is no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No; there is no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No; there is no bias.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No; there is no argument.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone seems to be okay. Nothing is biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The talk page mentions that there seems to be some inaccurate information that seems to be a good thing to look into. There is a debate as to where it originated so it would be good to find some sources confirming the current wiki article or disproving it. Under the "14th-century plague" subheading a citation is needed for the last sentence of the third paragraph.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * As noted on the talk page, there is a source from a CNN article that contradicts an older source so try to find some sources that would help aid in this discrepancy.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are current, but the older sources are outdated and may contain incorrect information as noted by the talk section.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes- There are a lot of sources that are used- over 100.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes; the links work when clicked.

Sources and references evaluation
Try to find some newer sources. It seems that the older sources may contain inaccurate information. The geographical transmission section needs the most work in this aspect. You could probably fix anything that states the plague started in Asia since the most recent CNN article says otherwise https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/23/asia/plague-china-history-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I do not think the lead is worded well.  The third sentence is very awkward and makes it confusing. "Plague was the cause" does not seem like a scholarly sentence.  There are also some repetitive sections under the subheading "Previous plague epidemics". It says "research" a lot so maybe use a different word.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The third sentence is worded poorly. Picture of the hand is missing a period.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes; the headings are useful. I mentioned this is the peer review talk section, but I think you could add a section about change in politics.  The source you found talks a lot about how the church lost power and the wiki article does not have a lot of that information, so it could be something good to talk about.

Organization evaluation
Overall organization is good. Try to reword the third sentence so it is less confusing. Honestly, I would delete that sentence entirely and create a new one explaining that the cause of these deaths was a plague, a disease...(and then explain how the plague is caused). Perhaps add a politics section and talk more about the church.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes; the images show the spread of the plague and symptoms.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes but fix error in picture of the hand. It is missing a period.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes; they seem to be taken from sources that are not copy written.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I do not think the first picture should be a picture of a map. You already have another map nearby.

Images and media evaluation
Caption needs to be fixed for grammatical error in the hand picture. You could also find a new picture for first picture. The map does not really add anything to the lead. Instead try and add a picture of the symptoms. The map picture in the lead is a better map than the photo used for the transmission section so maybe switch them.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * No content has been added but there is a lot of ways content can be added. The Third plague pandemic, Late 19th-century, and Fatality rate sections are short and need more information. There are some citations missing as well and some grammatical errors that need to be fixed. You could also change some pictures. As stated before you can talk about the church and the impacts of the death on it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The user has found one source. The source seems to be reliable and has a lot of information about the history of the black death which may be beneficial to add. On page 18 of the source it talks about the black plague's impact of feudalistic society and the church which is not mentioned in the Wiki article which could be beneficial.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Again, add citations and add information to sections that are very short. You can work on the lead and make it more concise.  The first sentence just seems very obvious and redundant so maybe back it up with a statistic. The third sentence is very confusing and needs to be reworded.  Also, you do not need two pictures of the map that has the same information.

Overall evaluation
List 5 suggestions:


 * 1) Find citation for  the "14th-century plague" subheading last sentence of the third paragraph.

2. Work on first and third sentence of lead. Potentially cut out so much of the transmission and leave that info for the actual subheading.

3. Find current sources. The older sources have inaccurate data so find sources confirming or disproving the transmission in Asia.

4. There are two pictures that give the same information. Find a new picture that gives us new information. Missing a period under the hands picture caption.

5. The source you found has a lot of good information not mentioned in the article. You could potentially add a paragraph talking about the changes in feudalism and the church as a result of the black death.