Talk:Ars moriendi/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are cases of peacock terms, like "an innovative response".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
In spite of the availability of good sources, in particular Beaty, which is only used once, there are large sections which are unreferenced. This is particularly obvious in the "Significance" section, which contains no inline citations. Statements like "before the 15th century there was no literary tradition on how to prepare to die" need citations. Without proper sourcing it is impossible to say whether the content is original research or not.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Lampman (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor is no longer active, so if anyone else feels like stepping in, please do. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]