Talk:Eilmer of Malmesbury/GA1

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of 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.


 * The article is inconsistent on where William of Malmesbury got his information from. We're told early on that: "There is little reason to doubt the accuracy of William's account as it was probably obtained directly from Eilmer himself when he was an old man." Yet later we're told: "It is highly unlikely that William would have spoken with Eilmer, since Eilmer was an old man in 1066 and William is not thought to have been born before 1085".


 * The lead is too short, at just a single sentence. It should summarise the article.


 * The last paragraph of Eilmer needs a citation. Whose opinion is that the periodicity of comets was unknown in Eilmer's time?


 * The quotation at the end of Historical traditions needs to be properly attributed.


 * In the same section, the Bescherelle book quoted from is not included in References.


 * "Eilmer could not have achieved true soaring flight in any event, but he might have glided down in safety if he had had a tail." The citation following does not support that assertion.


 * What makes this a reliable source?


 * What's the publication date of Scott's The Shoulders of Giants: A History of Human Flight to 1919?

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being 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. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly this article appears to be orphaned, with the result that the issues raised above have not been addressed. The article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)