From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Additional information: |
|
|
|
|
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
 Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
|
|
 |
A Wikipedian removed Procopius from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
|
[edit] Good article delisting
This article has been delisted after being listed on the disputes page. The discussion regarding the delisting of this article follows:
Uhh where to begin, no lead per WP:LEAD, only refrences is some futher reading, writing is rather bad on the article, not good Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is a lead - rather too short, but it's there. "Procopius (in Greek Προκόπιος, c. 500 - c. 565) was a prominent Byzantine scholar of the family Procopius. He is commonly held to be the last major ancient historian" is a pretty good summary of Procopius in two sentences. I don't understand "writing is rather bad on the article" (I presume you are trying to say that the quality of writing is deficient, but it is certainly one of the better-written articles I have seen on Wikipedia, perhaps because it was based on a Nupedia article: it is written in the style of E.B. though, rather than the blander style that predominates here, and includes phrases like "we know" which would probably be frowned upon by the MoS). The lack of a references section strikes me as unacceptable. The article dates back to the very earliest days of Wikipedia, before the use of a "references" section became standard. It is likely that the "further reading" section actually contains the references used to write this article. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to ever know. There's also no way that the claims in the article could be easily sourced to a particular referece work. So, while I disagree that this fails WP:LEAD and this is surprisingly well-written material, the lack of references probably snuffs this one out, unfortunately.TheGrappler 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delist - referencing not adequate by contemporary Wikipedia standards. Metamagician3000 08:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delist - Because of lack of references, lack of images, short lead and use of phrases such as "we know". I also feel the article doesn't stress the individual's importance. Cedars 07:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
