User:Rosyposy01/sandbox

Start Drafting your Article
Sources: Bubonic Plague
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The article was fairly relevant to the article topic, however it dwelled more on how smallpox was handled politically versus medical treatments and theories about the disease at the time.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article was slightly biased in favor of Washington and his political prowess. The author wrote that Washington was wise and "strategic" in his decision making to quarantine his troops to prevent them from contracting the disease, although he likely was just following medical recommendations.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The process and background of Washington making the decision to quarantine his troops was a bit overrepresented.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links work and the citations are from reliable sources. The sources support the claims made in the article, as the author included citations for numbers and facts used.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The references come from journals and publications. The referenced publication about the smallpox disease is neutral, however the publication ""Smallpox in Washington's Army: Strategic Implications of the Disease During the American Revolutionary War". The Journal of Military History." potentially is biased.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No information appeared to be out of date, however I think that it would be helpful to add information about the disease itself, for example how it was treated and what doctors and medical professionals recommended to lower infection rates. I also think it could be interesting if the author added a section about how the disease affected daily life for people, and if there was a socioeconomic disconnect between infection rates.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Comments have been made asking about sources for claims stated in the article, as well as other avenues of conversation that would be relevant to the topic. There have also been some suggestions about misleading information concerning a letter referenced on the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated start-class and has been part of several WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * For the most part, the information was presented in a neutral manner, with credible sources being provided. However I noticed some bias in the article concerning Washington's leadership skills, which was recommended against in our class discussion.


 * Kevin Cunningham. Bubonic Plague. Essential Library; 2011. Accessed October 1, 2020. pages 34-71

Additions to Article, 10/09/20
 * Echenberg, Myron. Plague Ports : The Global Urban Impact of Bubonic Plague, 1894-1901, New York University Press, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.mst.edu/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=865376.
 * Sebbane, Florent et al. “Kinetics of disease progression and host response in a rat model of bubonic plague.” The American journal of pathology vol. 166,5 (2005): 1427-39. doi:10.1016/S0002-9440(10)62360-7
 * Eldridge, B. F., & Edman, J. D. (2004). Medical entomology: A textbook on public health and veterinary problems caused by arthropods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.


 * Rat behavior and migration among densely populated areas.
 * Symptoms experienced by people infected including swelling of the spleen and organ failure.

Drafting Article
History Section:

Cause section: Signs and Symptoms section:
 * There are three recorded time periods where the bubonic plague occurred, ranging geographic locations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe. The first pandemic occurred in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean in 542 B.C. This pandemic resulted in the death of millions of people and aided in the fall of the Roman Empire. It was coined 'Justinian's Plague". The black plague hit Europe in 1347 and was the cause of death for an estimated 20 million people. Lack of hygiene and crammed living spaces accelerated the spread of the disease. As people migrated from urban areas, they carried the plague with them as fleas traveled in clothes, on people, and with food. The last recorded pandemic of the bubonic plague was from 1894 to 1950, where the plague spread from the Himalayas through eastern China, and later reaching the ports of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Bombay. Almost 15 million people died in the third pandemic, as British steamships transported rats and inadvertently the black plague. Due to international travel by mainly the British, spread of the disease was expansive and rapid.
 * The pathogen responsible for bubonic plague, Yersinia pestis, occurred initially in wild rodent populations, but was transferred to humans when fleas jumped from rats onto people. After biting infected rats and thus carrying the pathogen, fleas infected humans with Y pestis bacteria. Several flea species carried the bubonic plague, including Pulex irritans, Xenopsylla cheopis, and Ceratophyllus fasciatus. The Xenopsylla cheopis flea was the most effective species for transmittal. This is due to the anatomy of the the flea: when it feeds on a host infected with Yersinia pestis, the bacteria block the flow of blood from the flea's esophagus to it's gut. The flea begins to starve and jumps from host to host, and regurgitates the bacteria to each host as it feeds. Mammals such as rabbits, hares, and some cat species are susceptible to the bubonic plague, and typically die upon contraction.
 * Symptoms appear 2-7 days after getting bit by a flea carrying the Yersina pestis bacteria. The bacteria attacks the body's lymphatic system, where lymph nodes develop hemorrhages and and include lymph node inflammation, fever, chills, headache, muscle pain, and fatigue. The lymph nodes develop hemorrhages, which result in death of tissue. Y Pestis bacteria travels from the skin to the nearest draining lymph node, and enters the bloodstream resulting in septicemia . From the blood stream the bacteria is able to infect organs such as the liver and spleen.
 * Until the development of antibiotics in 1945, no effective cure was available.
 * Other animals are susceptible to getting the disease. These include rodents such as rabbits and hares. Cats are also susceptible.

First Pandemic Section: The Plague of Justinian is said to have been "completed" in the middle of the 8th century.

Cause Section:

Rats were an amplifying factor to the Bubonic Plague due to their common association with humans as well as the nature of their blood. Their rat's blood allowed the rat to withstand a major concentration of the plague. When the rat ultimately dies from the plague, the parasitic fleas are forced to find another host. Ultimately this host becomes humans where the regurgitated infected blood of the rats infect the new human host.

Create a new section regarding what is happening now and current research:

Substantial research has been done regarding the origin of the plague and how it traveled through the continent. The research regarding this pandemic has greatly increased with technology. Through archaeo-molecular investigation, researchers have discovered DNA of plague bacillus in the dental core of those that fell ill to the plague. Other evidence for rats that is currently still being researched consists of gnaw marks on bones, predator pellets and rat remains that were preserved in situ. This research allows individuals to trace early rat remains to track the path traveled and in turn connect the impact of the Bubonic Plague to specific breeds of rats. Another research study indicates that these separate pandemics were all inter connected. A current computer model indicates that the disease did not go away in between these pandemics. It rather lurked within the rat population for years without causing human epidemics. This in turn combated those that recommended killing the rats in heavily populated cities in an effort to combat the plague. This would be an ineffective strategy because cutting out the rats from the scenario means that many infected fleas will be released to attach to human host.

Cause Section

The fleas that transmit the disease only directly infect humans when the rat population in the area is wiped out from a mass infection.

Prevention Section

One mean of prevention in large European cities was a city wide quarantine to not only limit interaction with people that were infected, but also to limit the interaction with the infected rats.

Peer Review by LysolAllPurposeCleaner (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
What does the draft do well? I liked how informative you guys were. The drafted history section had more specific information rather than the broad covering that the article has, specifically in the number counts of how many died during the different occurrences and the geographical path that the plague took. The drafted cause section also had a more in-depth analysis on how Yersinia pestis goes from rodents to fleas to people and due to how the anatomy of the flea works rather than what the article did where they focused more on the flea and its role in spreading the disease. The drafted signs and symptoms section also did well in how the disease spreads and interacts with the human body in specifics rather than just saying what the symptoms are.

What changes would you suggest? I feel like the history section could be cleared up a bit. The short sentence about how it was coined ‘Justinian’s Plague’ was already covered in the article, as well as why it was called ‘Justinian’s Plague.’ It also states that the plague migrated from urban areas on fleas, clothes, people, and food, but this is already stated in the original article as well. The Cause section could also use a bit of cleaning up. Maybe get rid of the several flea species that can carry the plague as well? The cause section should focus more on the plague rather than all the fleas that carry it, I feel. The Signs and symptoms section was done pretty well, and I wouldn’t really change any of it. I would move the second bullet point “Until the development of antibiotics in 1945, no effective cure was available” to a different place than the Signs and Symptoms section like the Treatment section of the article.

Most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think it’s pretty good right now, so all I would suggest is making sure to clean up what you have so that you don’t stray off topic and also to avoid repeating what is already stated in the article.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all pertains to the bubonic plague.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all content that was added holds a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each section added appears to be consistent with giving the right amount of attention to its contents.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Most if not all new content gives the facts in a non-biased way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources are around 15 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? For sources yes, but there were none for Wikipedia articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe that the content added is an improvement to the article.

What are the strengths of the content added? They provide insight on many major points of the article.

How can the content added be improved? Probably. But it is fine as is.

Peer Review by PaladinSandalphon (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
'''What does the draft do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

Since this is a health-related topic, I’m glad that multiple secondary sources were used to back up claims about how the disease spread and how affected areas were impacted. The section about history was easy to understand regarding where and when the plague outbreaks occurred, but could use a bit more detail. The sentence structure overall feels like it would be easily accessible to people from a non-science background, which fits with the goal of Wikipedia being a source that anyone can access and/or edit. I also noted citations after just about every sentence, which is good.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

I strongly suggest that you Wikipedia links to certain words such as the species of fleas that carried the plague, the bacteria that causes the plague (as a side note, species names are also usually italicized from what I’ve seen in scientific literature), or terms like septicemia which not everyone may know what it is. I also read that the bubonic plague was nicknamed “Plague of Justinian” but I don’t see a clear reason given in your draft as to why it was associated with the disease, so definitely add an explanation for that. When it comes to your section on current research, I feel like terms such as ‘substantial research’ and ‘technology’ are too vague on their own. Who are some of the people/organizations responsible for the substantial research? What kind of technology has allowed for advanced research? I also noticed several grammatical errors. For example, in the sentence, “The bacteria attacks the bodies lymphatic system,” it should be ‘body’s’ instead of ‘bodies.’ Some sentences also sounded a bit weird reading them in my head, such as “their rat’s blood allowed the rat  to withstand a major concentration of the plague.” This claim is also missing some detail on how specifically the rats’ blood allowed them to resist the plague. This would definitely make the article feel more complete, more reliable, and with grammatical fixes it would flow smoother.

What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Definitely adding more detail to claims made and elaborating on them. Why was it called the “plague of Justinian?” Why does a rat’s blood allow them to withstand the plague? Who are some of the people involved in current research on the bubonic plague?

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

You explained the mechanism of how the flea was the most effective vector for the disease and how the bacteria blocks its esophagus and causes it to starve. I definitely need to make sure I’m explaining concepts in my article that may not be common knowledge to people outside of science/engineering fields.

Lysol All Purpose Cleaner Review Response
I agree that a section is needed regarding the Justinian Plague. This can be a very easy one sentence fix that could add a lot of clarity within this section of the article. Some further research is needed, but this will be done prior to coming to class next Friday. The rest of the edit recommendations were about my partners edits but I agree with his recommendations so I will talk about potentially looking deeper into those. We will work on adding minor details that can provide some clarity within the article and allow it to flow better. I will reread over the potential edits alongside of the article and see if there is anything that appears off topic and unneeded. I will also look at if there is any repetition while rereading.

Dpmx5f Review Response
This review was very ineffective with helping my partner and myself decide what needs to be fixed within the article. All the questions were answered with a "good to go. No changed needed" remark which does not let us know what needs to be fixed. The only thing is that some sources from the actual article need to be updated since they are around 15 years old. I will not be fixing all of these sources, because a lot of research and information on this topic have stayed primarily the same within the past 15 years. The content does not appear to be out of date, but I will attempt to find more recent sources.

PaladinSandalphon Review Response
I really likes the idea of a link to certain more scientific and difficult to understand topics. This would allow us to provide accurate information that our readers to understand without overloading them with scientific vocabulary. I will look into this further within the next week and attempt to find links that will help our article. If there are no links present, I will research more and attempt to provide the necessary information to understand this topic in a condensed manner. The Plague of Justinian is addressed in an earlier response and a fix has already been noted. More research on those that are currently researching the information of this event is necessary and I will dive deeper into that. I agree that some more information is needed. Some reorganization and clarifying is necessary and will be addressed with the next edit. The rest of the recommendations are regarding my partner's edits but I will also look into those to help her out with her sections.

Response to Peer Review- Rosalia Meusch ~
Response to lysolallpurposecleaner

The suggestion for clearing up the history section is reasonable, particularly for the “Justinian’s Plague” section in my draft. The Wikipedia article already provides a substantial explanation for why the plague was coined with that name, so no additional edits for that need to be made.

Response to dpmx5s

Adding more sources to provide extensive evidence for claims made will help the information stated in the article additions. Beyond that, no other recommendations or suggestions were made to improve the article.

Response to PaladinSandalphon

I took note of the suggestion to add links to medical terms such as septicemia and hemorrhages. Medical terminology is not the focus of the article, and so making that section of the article more accessible would be constructive overall. I liked the recommendation that we should be more concise in discussing the species of flea that had the biggest influence as a carrier of bubonic plague. Although there were other species besides Y. Pestis that transmitted the virus, discussing them in length is not particularly necessary for the focus of the article. Reorganization and clarification of the history section would help with the overall flow of the article, and so the suggestion to improve that is objective and helpful.