Talk:Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848) is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
 |
Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848) was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: April 19, 2007 |
 |
Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling(Talk) 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good article review
This article is currently at Good Article Review. Teemu08 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA/R result
In a 6 to 1 vote, this article has been delisted in a Good Article review. The premise of this one is nearly identical to the similar article up for review, the single and intermittently available reference being the sole amount of referencing for this article did it in, though in this review, broadness was also an issue. At least, in a GA review anyway. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 16. Homestarmy 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
