Talk:Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, Add MS 11848)

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) 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article review

This article is currently at Good Article Review. Teemu08 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GA/R result

In a 6 to 1 vote, this article has been delisted in a Good Article review. The premise of this one is nearly identical to the similar article up for review, the single and intermittently available reference being the sole amount of referencing for this article did it in, though in this review, broadness was also an issue. At least, in a GA review anyway. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 16. Homestarmy 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848). 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/20040618171434/http://www.bl.uk:80/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=c!/inetpub/wwwroot/mss/data/msscat/html/9989.htm&Search=11848&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=c!/inetpub/wwwroot/mss/data/msscat/html/9989.htm&Search=11848&Highlight=F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110131046/http://prodigi.bl.uk/Illimages/iBase/components/228/22849_2.jpg to http://prodigi.bl.uk/Illimages/iBase/components/228/22849_2.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040920040230/http://www.humanities.uci.edu:80/spanishandportuguese/spanish/medievaliberia/manuscript_glossary_C-D.html to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/spanishandportuguese/spanish/medievaliberia/manuscript_glossary_C-D.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) 03:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)