Talk:Wulfstan (died 1023)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article contains information without a citation and unresolved original research tags. I am concerned that it does not meet the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ealdgyth, the original GA nominator. Ealdgyth has posted elsewhere to say she's very busy at this time of year so I don't know how quickly she will be able to respond; I hope this can stay open for a while to allow for a delay. I've done a little bit of citation cleanup based on a couple of sources that I have, but I don't have access to everything she used.

I also notice, looking in the page history, that a lot of work was done after GA by both Ealdgyth and Eltheodigraeardgesece, so pinging the latter also in case they can source some of the material at issue, which might have been added after GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike_Christie, I'm not very active on Wikipedia anymore. But is there something specific I can help with? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eltheodigraeardgesece, thanks for checking in. There are a couple of places in the article with a "[citation needed]" notation; do you have the sources for those sections? If so, adding a footnote citing those sources would take care of most of what is needed here. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the reassessment can stay open as long as necessary. Yes, the lack of references is the main issue that I'm seeing; if that were fixed (along with the original research tags) the article would retain its status. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few long paragraphs that could do with splitting up, and I note that the Language section currently has an unsourced but interesting word list that hidden notes state is under construction. CMD (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that with the additions by Eltheo - I don't have the sources for those and I'm not going to be pursuing them... it's not an area of history I'm interested in. (I.e. I can't source the stuff... heh.) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Just want to make sure this is progressing. This has been open a long time now. Aircorn (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm going to have to close as delist as the unsourced content and original research concerns are still present. I guess reverting to the originally promoted version is an option but that would also involve removing valid content from the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]