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

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
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?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

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?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Voverbo/Dancing plague of 1518

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voverbo/Dancing_plague_of_1518?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead
- Information seems identical from original article.
- The plague is briefly explained, but does not go over any parts of the article beyond the fact of how many people were infected.
  - The lead could benefit from additional information about the events that took place, and introducing the modern theories of food poisonings and stress-induced mass hysteria, alongside additional theories you find.
- A short and sweet lead can work, so I don't think a ton of information will be necessary to add, but it needs more in its current state.
Content
- Content also seems identical from original article, but some citations have gotten lost (I will presume most got lost while information was being transferred around).
- In its current state, the articles are organized pretty well, and all sections have a decent amount of information. I do not know what information and sources you plan to add to these, but if available, it wouldn't hurt to add more and specify on aspects related to the plague.
  - Articles as of now are easy to read.
- The second paragraph under Food Poisoning is mostly just a quote. I think it would benefit from a neutral explanation of what John Waller is arguing for.
Tone and Balance
- Both seem good as of now. The article neutrally covers information and takes information from multiple possible theories, neither of them seem to have a bias over the other.
Sources and References
- Since no new content seems to be added, I cannot say for sure if any new references back up said information.
- However, looking at the original page, there is a nice collection of sources available.
  - Sources range from articles, journals, and books.
- One of the links ("Mystery explained? 'Dancing Plague' of 1518, the bizarre dance that killed dozens") leads to a 404; it's possible there are others to look into as well.
- There are a few citations that are missing citations.
Images and Media
- The draft contains no images or media, but if possible, I think it would benefit the page, as it is a more strange event in history.
Overall Impressions
- While I cannot necessarily comment on if the article was improved as it seems 1-1 (unless I've missed something, then this is a little awkward), the article gives you a lot to start out with. Any additional information to flesh out what is already there, as well as potential new information if it is available would be the best way going forward. I also think you should go through your sources and make sure they're links are functioning and are supporting your article. I believe I have overheard bits and pieces from this group, so I think this will turn out well!