Talk:Eilmer of Malmesbury/GA1

GA Sweeps

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.

The article is inconsistent on where William of Malmesbury got his information from. We're told early on that: "There is little reason to doubt the accuracy of William's account as it was probably obtained directly from Eilmer himself when he was an old man." Yet later we're told: "It is highly unlikely that William would have spoken with Eilmer, since Eilmer was an old man in 1066 and William is not thought to have been born before 1085".

The lead is too short, at just a single sentence. It should summarise the article.

The last paragraph of Eilmer needs a citation. Whose opinion is that the periodicity of comets was unknown in Eilmer's time?

The quotation at the end of Historical traditions needs to be properly attributed.

In the same section, the Bescherelle book quoted from is not included in References.

"Eilmer could not have achieved true soaring flight in any event, but he might have glided down in safety if he had had a tail." The citation following does not support that assertion.

What makes this a reliable source?

What's the publication date of Scott's The Shoulders of Giants: A History of Human Flight to 1919?

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being 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. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly this article appears to be orphaned, with the result that the issues raised above have not been addressed. The article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]