User:Nyankonyan/735–737 Japanese smallpox epidemic/4everStudent22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nyankonyan/735-737 Japanes smallpox epidemic


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nyankonyan/735–737_Japanese_smallpox_epidemic?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 735–737 Japanese smallpox epidemic
 * 735–737 Japanese smallpox epidemic
 * 735–737 Japanese 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


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, although a percentage of death of the population is given in the original article there is no number approximation.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no article body at this time so I am unsure about this right now.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, I did not read anything about the Variola major virus in the original Japanese Smallpox Article.
 * 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. You did a good job elaborating on preventive measures and other remedies for the time that sought to cure the ill.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, your reference articles were fairly recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? From the article draft you are missing the Article body, I believe this question might refer to that.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, and I do not believe so.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, it does not lean one way or another other than providing facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only thing I could think of that could fit this description is the sentence that states that it is "possible that the color red...." Maybe you could rephrase that to something like "there is evidence to suggest...."
 * 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? Yes, every statement is attached to a secondary source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? They seem to be from fairly recent publications.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Although the content is small, it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is one I would like to suggest. Instead of saying "Early Japanese preventative measures included wearing red..." maybe you could say "An early Japanese preventative measure included wearing red..."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are sections, but at this time I cannot be sure because you are missing the Article body.

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 added completes the article more by introducing the virus, connecting this article to the Small pos "demon" article, and you found a better estimation on the death toll.
 * How can the content added be improved? An article body can be added and the sections could be better linked together. But I believe this will happen once you get more information written down. I think that you guys are doing an overall good job at adding interesting information about remedies and superstitions surrounding the epidemic.