Talk:Silver center cent
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silver center cent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Silver center cent has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Passed
editShort but seems to cover about everything notable; if possible, it'd be nice to see a little more history of the coins since 1793 (perhaps accounts of other sales at auctions, their increasing value over time)...but not necessary for GA quality. Chubbles 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
editAs part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. I tagged the image to be moved to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have an account, consider moving them. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
One resource is over-referenced here
editThis resource is mentioned many times in the article though it's not published by any highly acclaimed publishers. Perhaps these references be changed to a more reliable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.131.169 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC) It does seem so --JoshXF (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Good article?
editHow is this a Good article? The entry is super short and has several errors displayed in the References section. Should we request a re-evaluation? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: Curious if you have any thoughts here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
edit- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Kept Brought up issues have been addressed Aircorn (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As User:Another Believer has mentioned on this article's talk page in March 2019, there are several errors in the references section. There is also a section on the coin's design which is totally unsourced. Additionally, a group of Turkish users who were attempting to translate the article and expand the Turkish version noticed that the references listed in the article are broken. If any of these arguments is true, then the article cannot be kept as a good article. That's why I am asking the community to reassess the page. Keivan.fTalk 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keivan.f, As much as I don't want to see a numismatics article demoted, the current article is not up to standards, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like Tsange has improved the article significantly. Does it meet the criteria now? (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)