User:Ninapetersenn/Massachusetts smallpox epidemic/Jsealy18 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Massachusetts Smallpox Epidemic - IllyFerg, JacobWiki44, Katebryan, Ninapetersenn

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ninapetersenn/Massachusetts_smallpox_epidemic?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Massachusetts smallpox epidemic

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

LEAD:

They added a much clearer description towards what smallpox was that can demonstrate a much better way of looking towards the disease and what it is, which is far more clearer than the one that the former article used.

Clear and Concise way of putting exactly what the smallpox epidemic was and how it affected other.

Could include a bit more description on the way that it affects the body.

Could include more citations.

CONTENT:

Added how it was spread through colonisation that has expanding the article thoroughly due to the fact that it shows that they have taken an article that the former article hasn 't been added nor expanded on and have added their own information in order to flesh it out more.

Included content towards the affects on the indigenous people and the ways that Massachusetts handled the entire situation, this makes the article appear a bit more interesting as well as expands the group knowledge as they have clearly used their references and articles that they have included in their sandbox to furthermore expand on the epidemic on the smallpox.

The content doesn't really provide an biases or trying to persuade the reader to look elsewhere which is good as it appears that all the information that has been added it just that information. However, because of this i do think that more references should be added in the form of in text citation as it can appear as though it is there information that they have drawn from when they have actually drawn from other articles.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

The sources and references added are very good ones as they are mostly secondary ones and so primary ones could be added in order to make the content a little more in date of how people felt during the time it was actually happening.

However the references added are ones that are from reliable such as from Journals, Law reviews, Health Boards and the Society of Medicine and so are reliable in creating a better content and better article for the readers to read.

They could include ones from a further range of places or ones that are at least from Massachusetts in order to get the opinion of those that were actually living through it.

Also they could include ones that are from different places as a lot of these references are journals and reviews which are good because they are written by people who have information on the theme at hand.

However, if they included a few more books or actual scientific documents this might furthermore establish a bit more content and better information on the article as a whole.

ORGANISATION:

No grammar mistakes that i can see and also the new information provided was very clear and concise and was easy to read even if you haven't ever learnt or read about this topic before.

IMAGES AND MEDIA:

No images added would make the article a bit more plausible as well as adding a chart like there is one in the former article