Talk:Louisiana Purchase Exposition gold dollar/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review--comments in the next 1-2 days. I actually might try to tackle all four of your new coin nominations today; your articles are usually such quick passes that there's no reason to make them wait in the queue. We'll see if I get to it. Thanks as always for the contributions, and I hope things are continuing to improve for you on the health front. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My health has improved, thanks, just about back to normal. Glad for your efforts on any or all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks ripe for promotion. I've made a few tweaks here and there; feel free to reverse any with which you disagree, as I'm not an expert in this area. (I am an expert in the St. Louis World's Fair, though, as is everyone from here. You wouldn't believe how much St. Louisans still talk about the fair, the last moment our city could be considered one of the world's major destinations--curse Chicago and its railroads--)

"and stating that the changes were being made at Roberts's suggestion." --it seems unlikely that the new reverse stated that-- maybe something like "the new design for the reverse"?
"noting that the gold dollar of the Panama-Pacific " -- "noted" is discouraged per WP:WTW; I've replaced this with "stating" if that's all right. This is more guideline than policy, though, so if you feel strongly, feel free to revert.

That's all I got; once that first point is fixed, this is probably ready to pass. I'll begin the checklist in a second to make sure I'm not missing anything. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, save for one minor point above; spotchecks show no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass; there's one minor grammar point above that should be addressed, but there's no reason to put the article on hold for it--I trust you to get it.

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.