Hello, I'm LT910001 and occasionally contribute to these GA reviews. I haven't contributed or edited this article.
Initial Comments Done
I will make some initial comments:
I find this article very engaging to read.
I don't think this article is ready for GA status.
To elaborate on these points, I think this article would be ready for GA status when:
It included a Society & Culture section to reflect how the Great Death was reflected in the arts, politics, philosophy and any other relevant sphere of society and/or medicine.
It included an Impact section to reflect the impact of the Great Death on society.
The "Background" section is either tighter or compartmentalised into different subsections.
From a medical perspective, I would love to have this article compartmentalised into sections outlining the risk factors for the epidemic, transmission vectors and so forth, but I think that the current historical narrative format, with a bit of tightening, reflects this. Given this is a historical article I think this could be said to be an appropriate format.
Thank you for your comments and taking on this review. I will work on the points you raise but would point out that the Great Plague of London was essentially localised to London and was one of a series of outbreaks of plague over a period of 400 years. Other parts of the UK were relatively unaffected in 1665-6 and the court moved to Oxford where they continued their jolifications. This epidemic in London was followed a year later by the Great Fire of London which also devastated the city. I think it would be difficult therefore to produce a Society and Culture section as you suggest, but I might manage an Impact section. I will work on your third suggestion of creating subsections in the Background section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, in case you don't know there's a very nifty tag ({{Seealso|article to see}}) that allows editors to refer to write a short summary of a topic whilst noting the body is on another article. {{Main|article's name here}} is similarly useful. LT90001 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have subdivided the Background section and added an Impact section.
I really do not think a " Society & Culture section to reflect how the Great Death was reflected in the arts, politics, philosophy and any other relevant sphere of society and/or medicine" is suitable for this article. It would be more suitable for the article Black Death in England. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, fair enough. I had a look at Great Fire of London for comparison, and I'd have to say I'm a better med reviewer than historiographical reviewer. That said, I'll get back to you in a day or two with some more thorough analysis (read: copyedit, citation-type stuff), but would have to say with some reflection, having had a look at the Great Fire article, and seeing the changes you've made, I quite support this article's nomination to GA status.
As with the rest of your prose, I find this very clear and easy to read.
"modern day" -> "modern-day" Done
link "Second Pandemic" to it's own article or subsection, certainly is important enough Done
"Bubonic plague is a disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium which is usually transmitted through the bite of an infected rat flea, the prime vector of Y. pestis." Done
This is uncited
Suggest comma after "bacterium"
"the prime vector of Y pestis" is a little tautological as you just say "usually transmitted" in the preceding clause.
I quite like the overall introduction to London as a squalid, over-crowded city.
"It was a city of great contrasts " (add comma) Done
suggest change from "sixty" to "many dozens of", sixty is a little specific and surely there was some yearly variation. Done
"There was no sanitation" (comma) Done
Recording of Deaths": This feels a little premature, as the rest of the article is in chronological order and this makes mention of the current plague and also previous plagues, also in reverse chronological order. Maybe you could move to the end of the 'outbreak' section?
"Previous epidemics" doesn't feel right here either. Maybe move to aftermath section, or reorder so that the previous epidemics part comes first (so that everything is chronological)
I moved these two sections to after the "Outbreak" section but they did not seem right there, so I returned them to their original location. In my opinion, the information on deaths and how they were recorded is part of the background information you need to know to understand what follows. I have edited it and it no longer mentions past epidemics. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Some previous outbreaks were the 1603 plague, which killed 30,000 people in the capital,[10] the 1625 plague with some 35,000 deaths, " probably should be "which killed about 30,000" and "around 35,000." There is no way to be sure precisely this amount were killed (as you discuss later in the article).
ships carrying bales of cotton from Amsterdam " (comma) Done
suggest wikilink "Bills of Mortality ", this is quite important to the article. Done
"These did not appear as plague deaths on the Bills of Mortality " (comma) Done
suggest reword "showed a dramatic increase" to "marked increase", as you go on to state that it less than doubled (I guess 'dramatic' is in the eyes of the beholder) Done
By the end of April only four plague deaths had been recorded " (comma) ? Done
Suggest wikilink 'parish'. Done
"the winter had been a hard one" feels a little too narrative. I'd welcome your opinion on this point, sometimes the wonderful prose seems a little too narrative for an encyclopedia. discussed above
Suggest "in the suburbs" -> "part of the suburbs" to formalise this a little (sounds a little colloquial otherwise) Done
Pepys' first mention here should be full name and wikilinked. Done
I will discuss the citation for Pepys' quote below. Done
Other than as a character study, is this relevant? "By June 10, Pepys was writing: "In the evening home to supper, and there to my great trouble hear that the plague is come into the City (though it hath these three or four weeks since its beginning been wholly out of the City); but where it begin but in my good friend and neighbour's, Dr Burnett in Fenchurch Street - which in both points troubles me mightily".[16] Dr Burnett voluntarily had his house shut up as soon as he had diagnosed the disease within. It was closed for two months during which time his servant died but the doctor himself survived. On emerging, he continued his medical work among the poor including plague victims only to become reinfected and die at the end of August.[17]" suggest remove, as this quote isn't that strong anyway. Done
Exodus
The first paragraph is uncited. Done
"most wealthy merchants and professionals fled" would like to know if this is a primary or secondary observation (ie was this an impression or is this a statistic?) perhaps replace with a quote. Done
Again "only a small number of clergymen, physicians and apothecaries remained to cope " is this a primary or secondary source? How many were 'small' and who said this? Done
Sentence "Among the people who chose to stay were Samuel Pepys, who had an important position at the Admiralty and Henry Foe, a saddler who lived in East London. " could be moved up to the first time Pepys is mentioned. Done
"While Pepys provides an account of the Plague through his diary, Henry Foe's nephew Daniel Defoe published A Journal of the Plague Year, a fictional account of the plague, in 1722, possibly based on Foe's journals." feels out of place here. Perhaps could move to the first time Pepys' is mentioned, making a note with a citation from a secondary source that these two sources provide a majority of the first-hand accounts of the plague. Done
"The poor people " do you mean townsfolk here? (as you state later in the paragraph), if retain "poor" suggest -> "Poorer people". Done
"The poor people were alarmed by the contagion and some left the city, but the idea of abandoning their accommodation and livelihoods for an uncertain future elsewhere persuaded many to remain. " I think without a quote from a primary source this is a difficult assertion to make. discussed above
"Before leaving through the city gates, they were required to possess a certificate of good health signed by the Lord Mayor and these became increasingly difficult to obtain" I wonder if this increase the speed of plague transmission to nearby areas (as healthy people can still carry fleas).
Height
"the Bill of Mortality " suggest "the (London?) Bill of Mortality" Done
"3,014 deaths in London " (comma) Done
Meaning here is unclear: "the plague victim figures are likely to be underestimated as deaths at this time of year were normally around 300". Do you mean: "The London Bill of Mortality of the last week of July showed 3,014 deaths, of which 2,020 were recorded as dying from the plague. The number of deaths as a result of plague may have been underestimated, as deaths in other years in the same period were much lower, at around 300." Done
"Bring out your dead" would be nice if this could Wikilink somewhere, but this is just a personal thing as I think it's got cultural significance.
Here you state "the authorities" but this is quite non-specific. Do you mean local church authorities, medical authorities, agents of the crown, stemming from a direct royal imperative, etc.? discussed below
"As time went on, there were too many victims, and too few drivers" Would be interesting to know if this was because the drivers kept dying of plague.
"The parish authorities at Aldgate " -> "For example, in the parish at Aldgate" (or some such) Done
As a medical reviwer, "cadavers" connotes a corpse in a medical context, such as one to be dissected or autopsied. Suggest (but not insist!) change to "corpses" Done
"unqualified physicians." I think a better word might be "formally trained", as from my (limited) understanding here or here, for discussion of sizeable non-qualified practicing 'physicians', there were no formal qualification structures at the time, simply licensing, word-of-mouth, and training. Done
"demented victims" suggest change "demented" with its neurological connotations to another adjective, maybe "desperate dying" Done
Has occurred to me that it hasn't been stated what the mortality rate of the plague was.
"running or crawling around, crying out in pain or lying in comas in doorways" probably should be a quote from another source, this is too subjective to be written as it is. sentence removed
"Sir John Lawrence and the Corporation of London " wikilink. Done
New 'food' paragraph suggested to start here: "That people did not starve was..." paragraph altered
"Records state that plague deaths in London ...between 30% and over 50%.[26]" great analysis. *** Suggest move some content in "Previous epidemics in London" after this paragraph, as it neatly follows what you've just written.
"The streets were thronged with grand carriages and carts piled high with the belongings of the gentry" should be a quote; too subjective. Done
"London was the goal of a new wave of people who flocked to the city in expectation of making their fortunes" better if quote. ok, there is some wiggle room for narrative discretion!
"destroyed much of the City of London " (comma) Done
Suggest move "Though concentrated in London, ... the death of around 75% of its inhabitants.[27]" to after the paragraph "Plague cases continued to occur sporadically ...City of London itself that was destroyed by the Fire.[24]", as it follows quite nicely. Done
"were 68,596 " -> "were in total 68, 596" Done
small thing: "both of whom " -> "of whom, both had stayed" to remove the ambiguity about 'both' meaning Lord Clarendon + Gumble. Done
No mention of 'ring a ring of rosies' which is a nursery rhyme commonly (I believe) misattributed to have arisen during this time. Perhaps could add this as a link in the 'see also' section. Done
"^ "An Act for rebuilding the City of London". British history online. Retrieved 2013-09-02." should cite to the original document, rather than the website that holds the document.
"^ a b "Diary of Samuel Pepys (30 Apr 1665)". Dictionary of Science Quotations. Retrieved 2013-03-23." should link to the original diary. You can provide a URL link in the citation finackery to the website, but the citation should be to the document itself.
"^ E. Social, economic, and political impacts of the plague on Eurasia and Africa, New York State Education Department" is similarly not reliable; the source they use should be used.
"^ "London and the Great Plague of 1665". Historylearningsite.co.uk. 2007-03-30. Retrieved 2012-12-18." again, not a reliable source. Where are these numbers derived from? Surely historylearningsite.co.uk and the NY state education department didn't do the counting themselves.
Not too sure, but I think it would be appropriate to cite the names of the authors of the articles on the websites that you're using, as this level of scholarship would be more appropriate for this historiographical article.
In conclusion, overall I find this article an engaging and well-written! On deeper inspection there are two things I think need to be fixed to move to GA status.
Firstly, the sources used need to be better. Unsourced tertiary reports can't be relied upon (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), and quotations should be taken from the initial source where possible (WP:RS)
Secondly, there are occasional deviations into imputing the motive for actions. Such statements would be better represented by a quote from a primary source, rather than a factual statement, as it's very hard to make this statement objectively without strong evidence.
Despite this, I hope you're not deterred by the large amount of comments I have made above! Most are very small, and this article is very good. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made many but not all of the alterations you have suggested above. I could remove some of the bits where I attribute motives to people. However, I am not a historian and normally write articles on Biology. I have no access to original documents and will be quite unable to fulfil most of your suggestions on citations. I was inspired to work on the article by the book by James Leasor. He mentions "authorities" in various places but I know nothing of local government at the time. Though I might guess it was the Corporation of London who gave the orders, I don't know whether that was the case. Seeing that I am not going to succeed to get this to GA status as outlined by you, I think I had better abandon the idea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo-ooooo! I'd hate to have deterred an article this close to GA from pursuing GA by virtue of my review! To be clear, this review is intended as a to-and-fro, not just a reviewer prescribing what's "right", so please feel free to disagree with some of the points I raise and I'll happily demur (for example of another review, see Talk:Aphthous stomatitis/GA1). For example, what you say about Leasor not mentioning who the "authorities" are is quite legitimate, I didn't realise that - so there's no way to change that. With the sources, you actually cite the original diary in section, so you can alter the two website diary citations to that one, and although it may take a week or two to find a more reliable source for the other things, you could use google or google scholar to find a more original source. There's no requirement that this article respond to a review in one day (or at all!) and I'd be happy to wait a week or two (or more) while you find some sources (considering we also all have an extra-wiki life!) LT90001 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, have faith! This is a really good article and deserves to be GA-nominated, and I would lastly like to note one very good indication of this is that it seems to be, word-for-word, providing the majority of the blogging internet's and other wikis musings on the Black Death (this article came first!)... so, it certainly can't be that bad! LT90001 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will work on making further improvements over the next week or so. It occurred to me (thinking about the matter in bed) that as the GA criteria do not require an article to be comprehensive, I can omit entirely any bit to which I cannot find an acceptable source, as long as I leave a cohesive whole that covers the main points of the subject.
With regard to one of the points you made, I am not sure about the death rate and will do some research. My guess is that the drivers of dead-carts may have been resistant to the disease or perhaps had already had it and recovered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was just a tangential comment :). I look forward to your changes and will be happy to continue the review when you're ready. LT90001 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a census of the changes made to keep track of everything. I'll await your changes to the citations section and, seeing as Leasor is a pretty important part of this review, see if I can get my hands on a copy to verify 3-4 of your references. LT90001 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent edits. I think this article meets the good article criteria (WP:GACR); namely, that it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and illustrated, and am therefore promoting it to Good Article status. LT90001 (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done 