Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Consolation of Philosophy/1

Consolation of Philosophy

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Consolation_of_Philosophy/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found

Result: Delist - Consensus is that the article clearly fails 1(a) and (b); 2(b); and 3(a). There may be other issues as well.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was last checked in 2007, and I do not believe it meets current criteria.

Criterion 2: there are several cn tags, and yet more material which probably should be cn-ed (e.g. paragraph 1 of Consolation_of_Philosophy makes numerous unsourced claims about the nature of the text and about contemporary politics: people being 'at the very heights of power' and so on).

Criterion 3: the latter half of Consolation_of_Philosophy borders on TRIVIA IMO (and many of the statements are unsourced).

Criterion 4: the lack of evidence for tendentious statements about 'horrific' executions, literary influences spreading 'nearly everywhere' and so on makes me doubt how neutral this article is.

 It Is Me Here   t / c 18:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done  It Is Me Here   t / c 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, lets see if anyoneresponds. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist Unresolved cn tags. Statements poorly worded and without citations at the bottom of the Influence section. The lead consists of just two sentences. The prose is very choppy, especially the Influence section. Very little work being done on the article and too much required to get it up to standard. AIR corn (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist - as a specialist in this subject, I think this article only gives a very cursory introduction to an important text. There are issues with the arrangement of the article and referencing which cannot be resolved easily. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)