Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Death/archive1

Black Death[edit]

Well-written and well-referenced article about a MAJOR event in both European and World history. It has already gone through peer review, and has been listed as a good article. I can't image anything else which can be done to improve it, but if you can please do it an then support this nomination. Captain Jackson 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. The formatting of the references will have to be changed to be in line with Wikipedia standard, but other than that, the best Wikipedia article I've ever read. RyanGerbil10 17:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. Ryan "Gerbil." Could we have a bias problem here? Sfahey 04:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Where are the inline citations? No references for all of the statistics within the article. Other references sneak into random places of the article. Related Events should be changed to See also and moved outside of the sources and further reading section. AndyZ 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. No inline citations, many adjectives and adverbs which create an inappropriate tone, many weasel terms and judgements that might be better left for the reader. JoaoRicardo^talk 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Looks good; I'll read through it thoroughly later. In the meantime, I wonder whether you'd mind delinking the trivial chronological items (e.g., '14th century', '1700s', '1347'). One or two simple date links—that is, the year alone—might be appropriate if they take the reader to a list of events that year that put your topic into context, but only if this is focused and useful. For example, the first year-link, 1347, takes us to the same image that is used at the top of Black Death, tells us that the BD 'ravaged Europe', and that Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor, died. Not useful. See WP’s policy on this at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context; see other information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.

Object. From a quick look, the article seems great. The reference section is good, but as have already been mentioned, there are not enough inline citation. (I can see 2, using different format.) An example of a problem: "A Swedish captain named Johan Strandberg in Norrtälje in Stockholm's skerries is the last known victim of this disease with deadly outcome [year unknown]." Who claim he is the last known victim (to die from it)? It also would be better if we actually know what year (with source obviously). -- KTC 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Sorry to be piling on here, but:

1. WAY overlinked introduction, which also doesn't mention the cause early enough.

2. Start of "alternative expl'ns" (An interesting hypothesis about the appearance, spread and especially disappearance of plague from Europe is that the flea-bearing rodent reservoir of disease was eventually succeeded by another species) is not an "explanation" for the plague.

3. First sentence talking about its cause (The bubonic plague was endemic in populations of infected ground rodents in central Asia, and was a known cause of death among migrant and established populations in that region.) is typical of subpar writing in this article; is it the rat or the human populations who died here.

Sfahey 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since only a miracle can save this nomination, would anyone like to close it? Captain Jackson 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]