Talk:Three-cent nickel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Andrew Gray (talk · contribs) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Not a numismatist, but always enjoyed these series of articles. Review to follow. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   There's a few niggling details but I'll deal with these separately; certainly not enough to fail it. All very readable even if I balk at a couple of the commas :-)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Solid lead; sensible layout; no problematic terms; no fiction; no lists. One block-quote is unfortunately lost because of the images on both sides (Carothers, in "Inception") but otherwise visually good. The images feel a little concentrated in the early sections, but I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that given the subject matter.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   References all look suitably reliable. (FYI, the two Google Books links are unavailable to non-US users; unfortunately, they're not on archive.org either)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   No unsourced claims

   C. No original research:

   No signs of original synthesis, and the points where sources disagree are signposted.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects seem covered. "Design" feels short, simply because it's surrounded by long sections, but it says all it needs to say.

   B. Focused:

   There's a lot of historical context, but necessary for the article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm not seeing any spin here.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Happy to pass this with no qualms. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)