Talk:American Arts Commemorative Series medallions/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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)

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

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers the subject in sufficent detail, no unnecessary trivia.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is good to go, so I am happy to list. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)