Jump to content

Talk:Jacob L. Beilhart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJacob 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
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
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)
  1. 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.--GoPTCN 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Blog accepted because the author is an expert
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. 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.--GoPTCN 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.--GoPTCN 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! :)--GoPTCN 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]