# Talk:Pennsylvania Ministerium

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)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
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): 
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)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Ministerium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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)