Talk:Papiermark/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 15 October 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.

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

Nominator: History6042 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for working on this article. My conclusion is, however, that this article is still far from reaching the GA standard. Because much more then some "minor improvements" are needed, I have to fail the article for now, but encourage you to resubmit when you think that the concerns are solved:

The main problem is for an article on a topic like this, there should be much more text in terms of readable prose. The history is clearly lacking many aspects (the politics/people behind it, for example). The article cannot be "broad in its coverage" at the current state.
The article does not seem to cover the basic: What is the Papiermark, how does it differ from its predecessor? Why was it called the "Papiermark"?
Generally, sentences are without context. Also, a "background" section could help to have a framework for the article.
Links to Google searches in the main text are a no-go.
The lead section is much too short.
You have a section "Coins", but no such section on the paper notes, and the coins section is not only about coins, but mostly about general history of the currency.
All the different notes are listed and shown, including the Danzing ones, but the coins are not.
These mark issues are extremely rare. – Misses context. I guess that this refers to collectors?
Sources do not really support what is stated in the article. For example: During the war, cheaper metals were introduced for coins, including aluminium, zinc and iron, although silver 1⁄2ℳ︁ pieces continued in production until 1919. Aluminium 1₰ were produced until 1918 and the 2₰ until 1916.[8] – Source 8 is supposed to support both sentences, but only covers that the 1 Pfennig was produced until 1918. I am also not sure if this particular source (an online shop?) is a high-quality reliable source.
There are entirely unsourced statements such as "The quality of many of these coins varied from decent to poor."
The "Comments" section in the tables appears to be without source, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 15 October 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.