Talk:Peace dollar/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

OK, on hold for the few concerns above to be addressed. I will inform major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This is 'reasonably well written, but there is room for improvement. the prose is a little stilted in places.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I fixed some dead links. The statement: In recent years, however, coin collectors have come to view the Peace Dollar as an attractive and desirable coin. needs attribution; Roughly one million examples were struck before it was realized that the relief on the coin was so high that it was difficult to strike, and the dies used were breaking at a high rate. Also, the coins were nearly impossible to stack. The relief was lowered considerably starting with the 1922 issue. That year more than 84 million Peace Dollars were struck, the highest mintage of the series. needs attribution; other sources used sources used appear to be RS
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It should be noted that because of this, one should be careful to purchase these coins from reliable sources only. sounds like a POV, needs attributing to a RS.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well, there has been no action on this in the last seven days so I am de-listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)