Talk:Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC) I will be happy to review this article. If you disagree with any of the changes suggested below, don't hesitate to tell me. HueSatLum 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• If the "United States Bureau of the Mint" is the same as the United States Mint, it should be changed and linked.
• "Oregon country" → "Oregon Country"
• Link "British Foreign Minister"
• "Depression" → "Great Depression"
• "Mexican-American War" → "Mexican–American War" per MOS:DASH
• "Panama-Pacific Exposition" → "Panama–Pacific Exposition" again per MOS:DASH
• Capitalize "congressional"
• Link "Panama Canal"
• Link "monogram"
• Link only the first mention of Bowers' name should be linked.

The United States Bureau of the Mint is what the present United States Mint was formally called until, I think, about 1990 (until 1873 it was formally the Mint of the United States). I can go with referring to it either way. I disagree on congressional; my understanding that the MOS thinks it should be lower case. Thank you for the review.Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, done those. I disagree on congressional, and I don't quite see where Bowers' name is linked multiple times in the text. I've also linked Panama Canal in a picture caption to avoid linking in a quotation, which is disfavored.Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not linked in the text, it's under "Other sources"; his name should not be linked for parts 36 and 37 of "Chapter 8: Silver commemoratives (and clad too)". Congressional and Panama Canal fine. HueSatLum 14:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I left one link there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor prose issues fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   reliably sourced

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   focused and complete coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   fairly represented

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   very stable

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):

   images properly tagged and appropriately used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Although it isn't even a month old, it is a very informative article. Just one step away from a four award! HueSatLum 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, and if you would like me to review an article for you, let me know on my talk. Yes, FA is the goal, as usual, but it's about third or fourth in line so it may not be until midyear.Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2013 (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.