Talk:California Diamond Jubilee half dollar

GA Review

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:California Diamond Jubilee half dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 04:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. I'll try to start the review in the next couple of days, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No disambiguation links. Not totally sure if the external links tool is working, but it doesn't seem to be showing any problems. Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I have corrected a handful of minor punctuation/grammar issues. Otherwise, the prose is very good and readable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All statements are attributed to reliable-looking sources. All of the sources are printed ones, which I do not have access to. However, in good faith, I presume the nominator has accurately used these sources and has not added original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is broad in its coverage and focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is neutral and does not display any biases.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   It is stable. No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are four images, three of which are public domain, and one is the author's own work. The images are appropriately captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a very nice article that meets the requirements of GA. Congratulations and great work! Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

New Section

This...THIS is what we've come to, eh? One state's stupid coin "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" above the other articles ranked only "good" here by some subservient admins who defend a system founded upon complete nonsense? I was told before that Featured Articles are decided upon by a set standard, including "prose" and whatnot and not popularity. I'm sure Shakespeare himself would weep at this prose - Phone Charger (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Q. David Bowers

Q. David Bowers looks a lot like Warren Buffett, and it'd be cute to note that in his caption but I know Wikipedia belongs to the humorless so I'm leaving it out of the article and just noting it here.--A21sauce (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Got that shot at ANA a few years back. I didn't want to be obvious I was taking his picture ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"Half dollar"

Resolved

Is there a reason "Half dollar (United States coin)" appears in the "See also" section instead of within the article's prose? Figured I'd ask before changing a Featured article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant to incorporate it in to text in all the articles, guess I missed this one. Don't worry about featured or not, I would suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)