Talk:Three-dollar piece/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Looking forward to reading your stuff again--thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review

A terrific article--extremely well written, well sourced, and (to a non-expert) appears comprehensive. A clear pass. I did make some minor edits as I went; feel free to revert if you disagree with any.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent. Sources do not appear to be available through Google Books or Amazon for spotchecks, but happy to accept them in good faith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to sources through Google suggests that main aspects are more than covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Thanks for that, and for your review Yes, I would be surprised if many of the books are available on Google books, too old and specialized.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)