Talk:Treaty of Orvieto

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail
 * Lack of citations & references is probably the primary reason for failing this article. Citation density is very low, and the article is missing citations for several key statements.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
 * Although it does a relatively good job of covering the topic, I feel that many of the sections are quite short, and warrant some serious expansion.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this fail is in error; the article doesn't fail by the quick-fail criteria, so it should have been put on hold for the editor to address the concerns. Furthermore, as User:Choess says above, he's away on some convention, so he should have been given a little time to incorporate more sources, as he's said he'd do.
 * I agree that there should be more citations and references. However, since the topic is rather peripheral, I'm not sure it's possible to expand the article significantly without veering off on irrelevant issues. I'd say if the sources mentioned above (Abulafia, Riley-Smith, Hazard) and maybe a couple more are incorporated, and the article gets sourced throughout, it's a GA. The editor should get a few days to do this. Lampman  Talk to me! 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)