Talk:1893-S Morgan dollar
Latest comment: 1 year ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from 1893-S Morgan dollar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 October 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that an 1893-S Morgan dollar sold for US$2,086,875.00 in 2021? Source: An 1893-S Morgan dollar graded Mint State 67 by Professional Coin Grading Service with a green CAC sticker set a record for the series at auction when it realized $2,086,875 at an Aug. 29 GreatCollections auction.
- ALT1: ... that the 1893-S is the rarest business strike Morgan dollar in the series? Source: The key business strike in the series is the 1893 San Francisco Mint issue. and the 1893-S is the rarest and most valuable Morgan dollar
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Beshoff
- Comment: There is an image available but since ALT0 is about a different coin I did not include the image. The image could be used for ALT1 if anyone so desires.
Moved to mainspace by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 19:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1893-S Morgan dollar; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Annwfwn (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is my first DYK review, please let me know if I did it right, 2nd opinion requested. I assume that your QPQ was done, @Bruxton:. Annwfwn (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Annwfwn, thanks for getting into DYK! The article is adequately sourced -- lead sections don't need to have citations, per WP:LEADCITE (they're considered cited by the body). This can be confusing to many newer editors, but you'll have the hang of it next time. Review looks good otherwise. Vaticidalprophet 18:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet Thank you for the education! I updated the template to reflect this. Annwfwn (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Annwfwn, thanks for getting into DYK! The article is adequately sourced -- lead sections don't need to have citations, per WP:LEADCITE (they're considered cited by the body). This can be confusing to many newer editors, but you'll have the hang of it next time. Review looks good otherwise. Vaticidalprophet 18:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)