<snip> Would it be all that hard to provide a specific page reference as a footnote. e.g. (hypothetical example) <ref>See, for example, J. Doe /Origins of Somethingorother/ p.29, J. Bloggs /Somethingorother explained p.60</ref>.</ref>? And there is no need to cite a source after every fact - after every paragraph or subtopic would be fine. But no citations is unlikely to result in a successful GA review, at least unless/until the proposed changes to the GA criteria are accepted. </snip>
Inline citations have now been added to Dido and Aeneas, easily enough (there are no page numbers given, because Grove online doesn't have page numbers, and this particular article is short enough to not have sub-sections). The point is that if reasonable references are given, inline citations should not be necessary for uncontroversial facts. If you look at actual encyclopedias, you will notice that they don't have inline references, especially for generally accepted facts.
Please not that I am not against inline references, and I am a big fan of creating good bibliographies for articles. I just think the current fashion of requiring an inline citation for every little thing is not helpful or productive. I think it lessens the usefulness of inline citations, because they are splattered everywhere. It's not that I /can't/ do it, it's just that I think adding inline citations for each fact in an article misrepresents the nature of the information. Generally, in actual academic artilces, inline citations are used for comments, or controversial material. If the accepted reference work is given in the references section, every piece of information taken from that source shouldn't need to be cited to that source specifically.
User:Makemi