Talk:Ars moriendi

Footnote

Regarding this footnote:

re Images: Master E.S., Alan Shestack, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1967

Where in the text should this footnote go? What is it referring to, a book called Master E.S. by the author Alan Shestack? -- Stbalbach 14:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

- it is relevant to all the stuff in the images section, so should go at the end of that. Yes, book is called Master E.S. by Alan Shestack. It is an exhibition catalogue & nos 4-15 were Ars Moriendi (no page #s, done by exhibit #). 4-14 were the Ashmolean set of the engravings (the only complete set). Thanks if you put footnote in. No ISBN # in book, but I suppose it may have one; no LOC # either. Johnbod 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ars moriendi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are cases of peacock terms, like "an innovative response".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In spite of the availability of good sources, in particular Beaty, which is only used once, there are large sections which are unreferenced. This is particularly obvious in the "Significance" section, which contains no inline citations. Statements like "before the 15th century there was no literary tradition on how to prepare to die" need citations. Without proper sourcing it is impossible to say whether the content is original research or not.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The main editor is no longer active, so if anyone else feels like stepping in, please do. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Now here's something I can sink my teeth into. I'll need to round up a few books, but I think we should be able to get this back to GA. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ars moriendi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406081552/http://www.georgetown.edu:80/labyrinth/library/ib/texts/ars/intro.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/library/ib/texts/ars/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Centuries?

The text includes: '...the /Ars Moriendi/ and works that pushed the good death concept such as /The Book of the Craft of Dying/ remained the dominant understanding of death throughout the 14th and 15th centuries in western Europe...' If the /ars moriendi/ was first printed ~1415 and the /Craft/ book was derived from it, how is the 14th century relevant? Suspect this should read '15th and 16th centuries', esp. given that one of the sources listed cites '/Ars Moriendi in the German Reformation (1528-1540)'.Sebum-n-soda (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)