Talk:Half-crown (New Zealand coin)

Half-crown (New Zealand coin) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Review: January 30, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Numismatics

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Half-crown (New Zealand coin) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a New Zealand coin was declared evidence of an atheistic government by detractors?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Half-crown (New Zealand coin).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a New Zealand coin was declared evidence of an atheistic government by detractors? Source: Stocker, Mark (2005). "'A Very Satisfactory Series': The 1933 New Zealand Coinage Designs" https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/2005_BNJ_75_9_nz.pdf Pg. 156 "The editor of the New Zealand Baptist believed the omission of 'Dei Gratia' reflected atheistic New Zealand officialdom"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/History of Qing (People's Republic)

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 07:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Half-crown (New Zealand coin); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Nice to see that you're still doing well with the coin articles! Article looks good, Earwig's is clean. Hook matches article, which matches source: "The editor of the New Zealand Baptist believed the omission of 'Dei Gratia' reflected atheistic New Zealand officialdom". QPQ is done, looks ready to go. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ^Queen of _Hearts 06:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Half-crown (New Zealand coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Queen of Hearts (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. ^Queen of _Hearts 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I forgot about this. I'll review it later today. ^Queen of _Hearts 04:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	In Reception, might wanna expand British MP John Sandeman Allen raised the issue... to British member of parliament John Sandeman Allen raised the issue.... In Centennial commemorative, I had to Google what "protracted" meant. Maybe I'm dumb, but I'd change it to "drawn out" or something of the sort. In Reception, The New Zealand Baptist declared the removal to reflect the atheistic attitudes of the New Zealand government. should be The New Zealand Baptist declared the removal was to reflect the atheistic attitudes of the New Zealand government. or something of the sort.	On hold
(b) (MoS)	LGTM	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	LGTM.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Spotchecking Stocker 2005, Stocker 2010, and Stocker 2011. Stocker 2005: LGTM Stocker 2010: LGTM (I didn't realize this was only invoked once...) Stocker 2011: footnote 23, article states In late August and September 1938, a competition was held for the design of the commemorative half-crown, as well as for the proposed penny and halfpenny denominations, however the source seems to specify Competitors were allowed to submit any number of designs in the brief timeframe available between the date of invitation, 22 August 1938, and the closing date of 30 September. Otherwise, LGTM.	On hold
(c) (original research)	LGTM	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	One minor spot of CLOP: In Centennial commemorative, This change was approved by the High Commissioner in August 1939, and the coin entered production. Any way to reword "approved by the High Commissioner"?	On hold

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	LGTM	Pass
(b) (focused)	LGTM	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
LGTM	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
This is fine.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	LGTM	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	LGTM	Pass

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
On hold

Discussion[edit]

@Generalissima: Dear fucking Lord, I am sorry this took so long. Placing on hold. ^Queen of _Hearts 04:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: Hey, no worries! Made fixes per your review.Generalissima (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]