Talk:Jerry W. Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jerry W. Cooper was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: January 19, 2007

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good MORNING/AFTERNOON/EVENING (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 18:15, Tuesday June 10, 2008 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

1. Well-written: Close Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Fail
7. Images: {
      

Your attention is drawn to the following points:

1. -- the prose, although acceptable, can be greatly improved; consider getting in some extra editors from the CUTF or other Cleanup WikiProject. 6. -- although the second half of the article is sufficiently cited (see WP:CITE), the remainder has almost none. This needs to be immediately addressed. 7. -- the article has one image; extra relevant images would improve the appearance of the article, split the article into more manageable sections (split by the attention-diverting image) and ergo the article is more readable.

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Sincerest regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)