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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
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):
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)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)