Talk:Burgundian School

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the 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. Agne 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the "references" are in a "references and further reading" section, there's no way to assume anything is referenced at all I think :/. Homestarmy 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote everything from the sources listed. They are all "references."  Antandrus  (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA
You have all four "references" listed under a "references and further reading" section, there's no way any reader can tell easily which is which, for all I know, content which the real references once referenced has long since been deleted. A "Further Reading" section represents a section where a reader may look at things and read them on their own time, but these things aren't actually used at all by the article, so you can see how this is a problematic reference situation. Homestarmy 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I changed the section head, and added some cites. I don't know what you are talking about regarding "deletion" -- I wrote the article and nothing has "long since been deleted."  Antandrus  (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A year and a half later, I tried reading your comment again, and it makes no sense at all. "for all I know, content which the real references once referenced has long been deleted."  Did you even bother to look at the edit history of the article?  Did you bother to notice that one person wrote it?  Did you bother to ask that person about the references?  Is "GA review" anything other than a pointless and destructive exercise in bureaucracy? Antandrus  (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)