Talk:Schuttern Gospels

Further reading?

To me, the 'Further reading' section implies that none of these sources was used for the article. If so, what sources were consulted? If not, I would suggest to rename the section to 'References' or 'Sources' in line with WP:CITE. — mark ✎ 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The works listed under further reading were not consulted. The only source for the article is the the British Library catalog entry. (The list under further reading is their bibliography) Dsmdgold 03:32, 31 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. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article review

This article is currently at Good Article Review. Teemu08 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GA/R result

This article has been delisted from a Good Article review. In a 4 to 1 vote to delist, the primary concern is one which I guess the editors of this page probably know by now since some of you commented on the review, namely, the single reference thing. I didn't vote on this article, but I think you'd have a better case defending the usage of only a single catalog entry if you could cite some precedents, policies, guidelines, or the like which justify the usage of single catalog entries to reference entire articles of this variety. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 16 . Homestarmy 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)