Old Time Missionary Baptists received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The redirect to the Missionary Baptists page eliminates the distinction between the modern and the old time churches. If you feel information on this page is not accurate, please advise. Otherwise this page should remain seperate. Austin135 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
(copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment:
I am responding here, basically because I'm new and not sure where else to do it. What do you mean about "organizational power structure"? I thought that was covered by saying that each church was locally autonomous, meaning that each church is answerable to no one, only it's own members. Please let me know what else needs to be added. Also, I added my main source of information, but it is not yet available on the Web, as far as I know. Let me know if another source, or just an available source, is needed. Joshuaingram 2203, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if that is better. Thanks for your help. Joshuaingram 2314, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why I keep getting a friggin error message? I keep attempting to add certain references, and it won't let me do it. I need help. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Alas, I figured it out. All I neglected to do was put quotation marks around the (ref name="blah blah") part. Well, it looks much better now. Hopefully, someone will come assess it quickly. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just made a minor NPOV sample change in the lead. The entire article needs to have a minor rewording along those lines. I could help if you like. Just let me know. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I have to admit I have a strong POV, since I am a member and I rewrote the page because I found it to be horribly inaccurate. Feel free to call me on any POV problems, please. I don't want this page to come off as a "we think we are right all the time" page. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, a few comments. One, most names of geographical/political areas, like rivers, counties, people's names, etc., should be turned into links, if articles on the subjects exist. Also, if the two citations for the "Fundamental Doctrines" apply to the entire section, then they should be moved to the end of the section. Otherwise, the doctrines are apparently unreferenced. Wherever possible, a refernce citation should be placed directly after the information cited, even if that means different citations after various sentences. John Carter ( talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems fairly good. The problems I see are in some cases stylistic, and thus my own opinion might not be particularly relevant. If I were the one working on this article, I might try to expand the history section a little. Otherwise, maybe the best option to get a number of views on the subject would be to request a peer review and see what sort of responses you get. John Carter ( talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Old Time Missionary Baptists received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The redirect to the Missionary Baptists page eliminates the distinction between the modern and the old time churches. If you feel information on this page is not accurate, please advise. Otherwise this page should remain seperate. Austin135 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
(copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment:
I am responding here, basically because I'm new and not sure where else to do it. What do you mean about "organizational power structure"? I thought that was covered by saying that each church was locally autonomous, meaning that each church is answerable to no one, only it's own members. Please let me know what else needs to be added. Also, I added my main source of information, but it is not yet available on the Web, as far as I know. Let me know if another source, or just an available source, is needed. Joshuaingram 2203, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if that is better. Thanks for your help. Joshuaingram 2314, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why I keep getting a friggin error message? I keep attempting to add certain references, and it won't let me do it. I need help. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Alas, I figured it out. All I neglected to do was put quotation marks around the (ref name="blah blah") part. Well, it looks much better now. Hopefully, someone will come assess it quickly. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just made a minor NPOV sample change in the lead. The entire article needs to have a minor rewording along those lines. I could help if you like. Just let me know. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I have to admit I have a strong POV, since I am a member and I rewrote the page because I found it to be horribly inaccurate. Feel free to call me on any POV problems, please. I don't want this page to come off as a "we think we are right all the time" page. Joshua Ingram ( talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, a few comments. One, most names of geographical/political areas, like rivers, counties, people's names, etc., should be turned into links, if articles on the subjects exist. Also, if the two citations for the "Fundamental Doctrines" apply to the entire section, then they should be moved to the end of the section. Otherwise, the doctrines are apparently unreferenced. Wherever possible, a refernce citation should be placed directly after the information cited, even if that means different citations after various sentences. John Carter ( talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The article seems fairly good. The problems I see are in some cases stylistic, and thus my own opinion might not be particularly relevant. If I were the one working on this article, I might try to expand the history section a little. Otherwise, maybe the best option to get a number of views on the subject would be to request a peer review and see what sort of responses you get. John Carter ( talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)