Talk:American Arts Commemorative Series medallions/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found, denticle and unlinked as I think neither Dermal denticle nor Pulp stone are meant here. Is this in fact the correct word? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The medallions were initially sold through mail order by obtaining that day's price by telephone Rather clumsy, can this be re-phrased?

Beginning in 1982, denticles, reeding and a statement of gold content and national origin were added to the medallions. As noted above in the disambiguations section, denticles needs explanation as there is no suitable Wikipedia target. Suggest a suitable paraphrase of this source.

Otherwise prose is fine, the lead is short but I believe that it adequately summarises the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are RS, and those that are on-line support the statements, assume good faith for others, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers the subject in sufficent detail, no unnecessary trivia.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is good to go, so I am happy to list. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I've fixed the problems you noted above. Rewording the mail order part was a little trickly, but I think it reads a lot better now. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2011 (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.