Talk Emilia Baeyertz

Source From Wikipedia English.
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review
Good articleEmilia Baeyertz 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 1, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Emilia Baeyertz preached to crowds on Christianity but her son, Charles Nalder Baeyertz, was concerned about the moral dangers of "a prevalence of bad English"?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 29, 2017, and March 29, 2024.
WikiProject iconChristianity Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish Women Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWales Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIreland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Australian Women in Religion Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of the Australian Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australian Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.
WikiProject iconWomen in Religion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


All good, I'd guess reasonably comprehensive on here too, probably not a great deal of material.


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)