Talk:Catherine Clark Kroeger
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Clark Kroeger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930222057/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20101110%2FOBITS02%2F11100344 to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20101110%2FOBITS02%2F11100344
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720021359/http://www.gordonconwell.edu/prospective_students/catherine_clark_kroeger to http://www.gordonconwell.edu/prospective_students/catherine_clark_kroeger
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
article needs review for bias
[edit]The article has been written with clear bias for this individual and overly uses primary sources or review from the wikipedia author.
The reality is that Kroeger's works, while very detailed and thorough, were a great controversy in the biblical academic world and thus the article should clearly demonstrate both sides of that argumentation.
A banner at the top of the page highlighting the issues of this article is the least needed to bring it up to wikipedia standards, regards Ei nju jusər (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC).