Talk:Ars moriendi

Footnote

Regarding this footnote:

re Images: Master E.S., Alan Shestack, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1967

Where in the text should this footnote go? What is it referring to, a book called Master E.S. by the author Alan Shestack? -- Stbalbach 14:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

- it is relevant to all the stuff in the images section, so should go at the end of that. Yes, book is called Master E.S. by Alan Shestack. It is an exhibition catalogue & nos 4-15 were Ars Moriendi (no page #s, done by exhibit #). 4-14 were the Ashmolean set of the engravings (the only complete set). Thanks if you put footnote in. No ISBN # in book, but I suppose it may have one; no LOC # either. Johnbod 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ars moriendi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are cases of peacock terms, like "an innovative response".

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Now here's something I can sink my teeth into. I'll need to round up a few books, but I think we should be able to get this back to GA. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)