Talk:The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman

The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 12, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a possible source for the poem The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman, by the 15th-century Scottish poet Robert Henryson, was Aesop's Fables as published by William Caxton?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fox, the Wolf and the Husbandman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your comments. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, it's 2nd on my list of pending reviews at the moment. :) Should get to it soon. — Cirt (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 24, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Writing quality is good.
Disciplina clericalis - redlink, not necessary, but would be nice if it were created, at least as a sourced stub.
Template:Henryson - lots of redlinks here, not required, but would be good if they were created, at least as referenced small articles.

2. Factually accurate?: Cite missing at end of sentence at end of Analysis sect.

3. Broad in coverage?: Analysis sect - can this be expanded upon in size and scope a bit?

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and article talk page history going back over one month, no issues with stability.

6. Images?:

File:Dunfermline Abbey by John Slezer.jpg - image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page checks out okay.
File:William caxton.jpg - image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, missing author field. Also, appear to be problems with licensing tag section.

NOTE: Please respond below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced second image, at fault, with another image.
Expanded on the Analysis section with an elaboration of a point and an example of Yamamoto's; also re-worded. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled on this and completed point #3 Eatmark (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Eatmark[reply]

Appreciate the work Eatmark. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA[edit]

Passed as GA. Thanks for responsiveness to comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]