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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

The dancing plague


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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:

- The lead seems not to reflect a whole lot of the information the group added, but it also doesn't seem like it is completely done. However, the sentence does provide a concise description of what the article is about. I would say the lead does not include a brief description of the major sections of the page, and to maybe include a brief summary about what is going to be talked about in the article. The lead does not include information about the topic that is not listed in the article, other than the fact it was in modern day France which is a good thing to note. The lead is concise and not overly detailed, but it needs a little bit more information in order to include brief descriptions of the major sections.

Content:

The content on this page seems to be up to date and very relative to the topic. There is nothing that seems out of the norm, and it all seems like good and valuable information. I think it is good that you all included some controversy that may surround the topic, and put only what you found and not your opinion. The content seems good and complete with what you have, but I think it would be good if you found one or two more modern day theories for why the dancing plague may have taken place.

Tone and balance:

The article seemed to remain very neutral to me, only giving the facts that was found during the research. I don't think there is anything that you could do in this article to make it any less biased. It seems to me like this article is presenting facts only which is good.

Sources and Reference:

There are no sources listed in this article which is the main problem with this article considering wikipedias policies. Make sure to put where you found the information so it doesn't seem like it's copy righted.

Organization:

It seemed to be organized well and it was easy to read. There didn't seem to be any spelling or grammar errors within the article. The breakdown of the article makes sense, and the information below the sections are in relation to what needs to be talked about.

Overall:

The content within this article seems to be complete, but I think that it could still include a little bit more detail in the modern theories section. It would just be very interesting to see more theories of why this may have happened. I think the main thing would just be to make sure and include citations, but other than that the article looks good so far.