Talk:Jomsvikings: Difference between revisions
GA re-review and in-line citations |
GA Status Revoked |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DelistedGA|16 November 2006}} |
|||
{{GA}} |
|||
{{WPMILHIST |
{{WPMILHIST |
||
|class= |
|class= |
||
|Middle-Ages-task-force=yes |
|Middle-Ages-task-force=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles]] are in the process of doing a re-review of current [[WP:GA|Good Article]] listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article Criteria]]. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found [[Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates|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 [[WP:V|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 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles|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. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
Members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles]] are in the process of doing a re-review of current [[WP:GA|Good Article]] listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article Criteria]]. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found [[Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates|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 [[WP:V|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 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles|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. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Reasons for GA Delisting == |
|||
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of '[[WP:WIAGA|What is a Good Article?]]', which states; |
|||
::(b) the [[WP:CITE|citation]] of its sources using [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles|inline citations]] is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|guideline on citation]], as well as some other editors — see [[Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?|talk page]]). |
|||
[[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:05, 16 November 2006
 | Jomsvikings was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: November 16, 2006. |
 | Military history: Medieval Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Does Saxo Grammaticus really mentions Jomsvikings? IMHo, but I read comments about it quite long ago, he only mentions JULIN, city of SLAVIC pirates, and does not mentions Jomsvikings. AFAIK sagas are ONLY source which mentions Jomsvikings. Szopen 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia: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 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
- (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).