Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Chrysostom/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted I think some of the unreliable sources might be OK, but enough are certainly unreliable and there are many uncited passages that really should have a cite AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC).
The article fails to consistently use reliable sources and also contanins uncited content. I have flagged some of the unreliable sources in the article. buidhe 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's another source. Can this be used to demonstrate more certainty of the quotes? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm Jbermudes (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in the source is WP:DUE unless covered by a secondary source (especially when there are so many high quality scholarly sources available on Chrysostom). I'm not sure what you mean by "demonstrate more certainty of the quotes". buidhe 06:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)