Talk:Pennsylvania Ministerium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pennsylvania Ministerium has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 11, 2007.
July 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Pennsylvania Ministerium is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Pennsylvania Portal Pennsylvania Ministerium is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Comments

Only comment that comes to mind is that some reviewers for GA and higher prefer seeing two references per paragraph, or at least one per paragraph. John Carter 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good thought, now that the article is roughed in I have started going back through and adding more references. Trying to find a balance between under-referenced and being referenced to death. Pastordavid 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added more refs and more wikilinks; and I have also created stubs for the red-links in the article. Pastordavid 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I only think there are two addtional citations that should be in this article to pass it to GA. I say should because I don't necessiarly think there is anything "controversial" or "likely to be challanged" about either statement, but for the purpose of those who think that GA needs to be highly sourced, they should probably be included. -- jackturner3 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Citations added where indicated. Pastordavid 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, and the quick response. Have a great weekend. Pastordavid 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)