Jump to content

Talk:Half-crown (New Zealand coin)

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 Lightburst talk 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

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. QueenofHearts 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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. QueenofHearts 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (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]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (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).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [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

  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.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. 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 On hold
    (b) (MoS) LGTM Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) LGTM. Pass 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 On hold
    (c) (original research) LGTM Pass 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 On hold
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) LGTM Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) LGTM Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    LGTM Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    This is fine. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) LGTM Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) LGTM Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
On hold On hold

Discussion

[edit]

@Generalissima: Dear fucking Lord, I am sorry this took so long. Placing on hold. QueenofHearts 04:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Half-crown_(New_Zealand_coin)&oldid=1230373500"