User:Voverbo/Dancing plague of 1518/Jsealy18 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Dancing Plague of 1518 - Noahjdengler, Pricejones14, Bella.daly6, Voverbo

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voverbo/Dancing_plague_of_1518?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dancing plague of 1518

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:

Their Lead has been altered slightly in that they haven't provided an overly detailed description of the Dancing Plague, however, they have provided a few more details towards the article rather than completely copying what the former article has said.

I do believe a few more citations just be included when speaking about examples, such as when this group speaks on 15th Century Apulia, i believe there should be a citation to show where you have got that story from as it can appear a lot more plausible if there is an added citation included in it.

The beginning sentence is very concise and clear, but it is very close to the article itself and so i believe a bit more can be added to it so that it isn't too closely connected to the former article. As well as could provide a little bit more information about it.

CONTENT:

This group hasn't added anymore content onto their article as the information that is in the sandbox is the same content that the article has spoken about.

So i believe they should add more arguments and a bit more information on how the disease spread, how it effects people in the sense of what it does to their body and how it was able to expand to other countries in the World.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

Only 3 references have been added into the Bibliography however they haven't been added into the content neither have they shown in the sandbox that they have used the new references they have found to furthermore address the content and take in to a new level.

ORGANIZATION:

No change has been made to the content

Could use more formative writing as well as making more wider ranged concepts that can be structured well in order to back up the information provided better

NEW ARTICLE:

This seems to be a recent article as it doesn't have much information added to the article and it also seems to be quite new.

It has 3 reliable secondary sources that is highlighted in the external links however it has gone a bit overboard of the sources they have put on the reference list as they don't cite all of the references in the actual article itself.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:

I do believe this article could be a good one, however, this group just needs to add a bit more content to the actual article itself and begin to create more of a fleshy outlook on it.

They can do this my including more citations and references as well as expanding onto further topics of interest that can be linked towards the given article.