Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Death/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

---

Black Death

previous FAC

Check external links

I am nominating Black Death for a Featured Article, as it has grown quite a bit since its failed FA candidacy two years ago. Good sources, good citations, and a wonderful article overall. The link to the previous FA is below. Jmlk17 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Plenty of sections unreferenced or largely unreferenced
  • Citation needed tags
  • MOS issues including positioning of references and date ranges.
  • References need correctly formatting. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 should not be a category of an FA. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • There are three outstanding citation requests on the article.
  • Inconsistent referencing style – use cite web, cite journal, cite book templates.
  • Entire sections are unreferenced.
  • The Black Death has been covered in dozens of scholarly works, and as such, the article should be properly sourced to these works.
  • Only a few of the secondary book sources are actually used; I suggest using more of these sources.
  • MoS isues, as mentioned above. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Substantial referencing issues pertaining to sources used (WP:RS/WP:V problems – including use of a wiki), unreferenced statements/facts/sections and formatting of existing references (e.g. per WP:FN, ibid is not to be used). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. You're putting up an article that has a protection tag? Hardly stable if it needs protection. Also, way too many refs in the lead, with 11. A proper lead, as a summary, should need few if any refs; those should be in the body with the details. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is semi-protected. The stability criterion (1e) applies only when there are edit wars or the article is being significantly changed on a daily basis. Neither is the case, so the article is perfectly in accordance with 1e of the FA criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • lots of short stubby one sentence paragraphs at the end.
  • Lots of unreferenced statements.
  • Use of "ibid" in the footnotes which means that if someone moves something around, the footnote has to be rewritten. Wikipedia:Footnotes states that ibid shouldn't be used.
  • references that are heavily used aren't listed in the secondary sources section.
  • Formatting issues with references (Economic History Review, etc.)
  • A number of the online sources are not the best (footnotes 36 is unreferenced, 35 is to a book review, 37 is to an online course assignment, those are the ones that I looked at).
  • What does footnote 44 mean? (Appleby and Stack, secondary sources) does that mean that Appleby and Stack were used or was it Appleby and Stack and others? In either case, specific citations need to be used, giving page numbers.
  • This source [1] is based on a wikipedia article.
  • Your referencing style is inconsistent... some are footnotes with full citations, some are short footnotes, and some are Harvard.
  • The other effects subsection is weirdly laid out, are the cane, gas mask and stuff meant to be further subsections?
  • Some block quotations have no source citations on them.
  • forced picture sizes on the pictures

I am on the road and didn't have a chance to do a lot of checking, but at first glance, the article needs a lot of work. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—please withdraw the nomination and work on fixing the article based on the advice above. Maybe you could team with another editor. Although it's not ready for featured status now, it might be ready after some hard work. — Deckiller 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Much commendable work has gone onto this article, but it's not right for FA. It's too long, and all those lengthy quotations do not help. The article is bookish and not encyclopedic. Moreover, the references are bookish too. They will not survive any future edits because of all those ibids. If a future editor wants to insert a reference in between them, the whole system will break down. The article should be split into a medical article, an historical article, and perhaps one on the Black Death in literature.--GrahamColm^Talk 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.