Talk:Old English literature/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

A good article is—

Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

I think this article obviously fails 2 a) and b), with the vast majority of paragraphs not cited at all, inlcuding quotes. Hence there is no way to know if it passes 2 c).

Also i don't think it is sufficiently broad in it's coverage (see talk), with many paragraphs simply stating that an anglo-saxon work exists, but giving no criitical or historical evaluation of importance.

So i plan to delist this as a good article soon, as the the work to source all this would require a lot of work.Yobmod (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)