Talk:Jacob L. Beilhart

Jacob L. Beilhart 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 14, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacob L. Beilhart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead is only two sentences long. Add important aspects from his early life, the foundation of the society and the last years. Two - three more sentences ought to do.--GoP _T ^C _N 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Blog accepted because the author is an expert
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall: I copyedited the article a bit and linked some uncommon words. Otherwise the article deserves the icon if you expand the section a bit.--GoP _T ^C _N 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail:

I've expanded the lead section. I'm always fearful that I'm including too much once I get started. I believe that I've addressed the concerns expressed above. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but the last sentence of the lead is not cited, though. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had left it off (per my comment on your talk page).... I've added the reference now. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 20:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I will pass the article! :)--GoP _T ^C _N 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]