Jump to content

Talk:Memento dollar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Rjjiii talk 14:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1914 Memento Dollar
1914 Memento Dollar
  • Source: Kann, Eduard (1953). Illustrated Catalog of Chinese Coins (Gold, Silver, Nickel & Aluminum). pp. 188-189
Created by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 79 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough, new enough. Well written and seems compliant with policy. My only worry is that the Kann book this is sourced to is self published, but from searching he was an established subject matter expert who sees use by others, so I think it's fine. I cannot find a copy of the book but I will AGF. Good to go. Image is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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:Memento dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this in a few days! Arconning (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

[edit]

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • denominations of the coin was also produced,, I'm guessing it should be "were"
    • Fixed. - G

Background

[edit]
  • No issues.

Design and production

[edit]
  • No issues.
Later production
[edit]

Media

[edit]
  • All five media have proper licenses and are used appropriately in the article.

Refs

[edit]
  • I can't really access the first source so AGF. The following three sources are suitable. :)
  • Earwig picks up nothing. Manual check is alright as well.

Misc.

[edit]
  • No ongoing edit war, broad and focused info, neutral.

Comments

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.