Talk:Manchurian plague/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a very short article, well-cited for its length, but I think too short to cover its subject adequately. In particular, there is nothing about the timing and geographic distribution of this plague beyond the brief "in Manchuria in 1910–1911". In what dates and what places in Manchuria did it begin, spread, and eventually end? Maps would help. Did it spread through infected animals, through fleas, through contaminated breath from other infected people? How did it spread beyond Manchuria? How do the numbers of infected and dead people relate to the total populations of the infected area? What was the age distribution of the victims?

Additionally, at least a paragraph worth of context of what kind of plague this is would be helpful, as would at least another paragraph worth of context on what living conditions and health care in Manchuria were like at that time. "Bacterial pneumonia" is very vague. Was this Yersinia pestis, specifically, as the link in the lead suggests?

Were cloth face-masks the only protective equipment used in this outbreak, or is there more to it than that in order to justify the "credited for the origins of the modern hazmat suit" claims? A hazmat suit is very far from a face mask. One of the photos in the article suggests that much more than masks were used but there is no textual support in the article for this.

Two of the sources are entire books written on this specific topic. If there's enough material to write a book on it, surely there's enough to expand this article to more than seven paragraphs. In short, I think this article could easily be twice as long as its current length without running afoul of WP:GACR #3b. I think that it requires significant expansion before being ready for GA, that the required expansion would be so significant that it would make it into effectively a totally different article than the nominated one, and that this is very far from meeting GACR #3a, "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Therefore, I think the best outcome for now is a quick fail, WP:GAFAIL #1.

On a superficial reading, though, the article looks ok with regard to the other Good Article criteria, well sourced and well written, so I think this is a good start and could be renominated after an appropriate expansion.

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)