Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Canterbury Tales/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2018 [1].

The Canterbury Tales

Nominator(s): Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is both informative and interesting to someone who wants to know about The Canterbury Tales. It is well researched and very well written. It also covers topics; rarely discussed by others; those topics are discussed well. This page would certainly be a great example for Wikipedia for the best that we have to offer. Thank you and have a nice day. Do the Danse Macabre! 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Doubts about FAC

You do not appear to be a primary editor for this article, at least according to this. Have you consulted with any of the primary editors on putting this up for FAC? There are also a few maintenance tags in the article, such as "citation needed" and "incomplete short citation" tags. There are also large sections of the article that do not contain any references, such as the "Influence on literature" section and the "Literary adaptations" section and portions of the "Adaptations and homages" section. I would suggest withdrawing this, as these tags are red flags that this article is not ready for FAC at this point in time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this for my above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

Black, Joseph (2011). Missing ISBN;
Biggs, Frederick M. Chaucer's Decameron and... Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;
Rubin listed title first? No chapter author?
Brewer, trigg, Linne & Podgorski not in references. You woudn't have these errors (and I wouldn't have to spend my time checking for them) if you would be so kind to yourself and to everyone else involved as to use {{sfn}} and |harv=
" Encyclopedia Brittanica" isn't a sufficent reference.
What's the sorting logic for your further reading section? And "Spark's Notes"? Every student knows those exist Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not in good shape, and as Aoba47 points out, there are insufficient citations in some areas, and too many tags. Suggest withdrawal and some time spent on improving it, rather than this premature nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Withdrawal

Ok, maybe not good enough for Featured, but it is maybe good for good? Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The errors that I have pointed out above with citation would still be a major issue with GAN so I would say no to that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Good articles should be approaching FA standard in terms of prose, and equal to it in the fact that everything should supported by citations from a reliable source. The main difference between GA and FA should be the scope of ~~references~~ sources used and the depth into which the subject is explored. See WP:WIAGA for information on the criteria needed; as it stand, this would fail on 1 and 2 and probably 3 - I didn't get as far as 4 or 5, to make a judgement on those. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you would really like to work on this article and improve it, then I would recommend doing the following: 1) contacting the article's major contributors and editors and 2) possibly going to peer review to have others identify points that need improvement. The lack of references in major parts of the article would be a quick fail for me when it comes to GAN. I would suggest that you read more about the criteria for FAC and GAN, and look through featured articles and good articles on similar topics to have a better understanding of both processes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - courtesy ping to the co-ords to notify them of the withdrawal by the nom. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.