Wikipedia:Peer review/List of currencies in North America/archive1

List of currencies in North America

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I withdrew the previous FLC, but I feel I have adequetly addressed the issues there, and brought the article up to a sufficient standard to be taken there again. However, I want a second opinion on the quality of the article. Thanks, Matty.007 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

• I think your explanations of the words "currency" & "reserve currency" are unneeded. Both are familiar enough to most readers -- everyone except young children & people learning English as a second language -- that a link to the article ought to suffice.
  • Removed definition of currency and reserve currency. Matty.007
• But you are correct in taking the time to explain the role of some of these currencies. The US dollar does have a great influence -- some would say, too much -- in the economies of the rest of the Americas. And the world. You are also correct to explain the East Caribbean Dollar, although I would prefer to see a little more about its history. (That several independent countries agreed to share one currency is unusual, as is the fact that Barbados opted out of adopting it.)
  • Little more added. Matty.007
• Yes, "North American dependency currencies" should not include Saint Pierre and Miquelon -- or Greenland. But I think you need to explicitly state they are not included at the top, in order to minimize surprise to the reader.
  • Done. Matty.007
• The list of countries & dependencies at North America is not identical with the one at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America, & there may be a discussion which one will be made to agree with the other. Just a head's up.
  • The soverign states are the same, I excluded dependencies which are not internationally recognised, marked in italics on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. Matty.007
• As for the tables, two thoughts:
  • I prefer tables & lists that have links to have them appear only for the first appearance of the term linked. The same with citations. In any case, it appears your style is inconsistent: some terms have a footnote with each appearance, some only on their first appearance.
  • Fixed inconsistancies. Matty.007
  • I like the idea that there is an entry for the "previous currency", but the fact some of these previous currencies haven't been used in a long time -- AFAICR, Canada has always used dollars, not pounds -- it would be helpful to add the year when the previous currency was replaced with the current one.

Otherwise, this list looks very good. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I think this would be very hard to find, finding the previous currency (with a RS) was hard enough, I suspect that although finding dates would be nice, they would not be reliably sourced. Matty.007
      • I took a look at some of the articles on the current currencies, & they provided dates for when those were adopted; this might be original research, but I'd guess that those would pass for the year the former currencies were replaced. :-) llywrch (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I remember now, I used to have years (either on this one and the Europe one, or just the Europe one), and the dates depended on where you cut off; do you cut off at re-issue, or at the beginning of the currency. Also, there were lots of unsourced/na ones, so I think this is best left out. Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this peer review Llywrch! Do you think the article is at/near Featured List level? Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had horrible luck with trying to get an article accepted as a Featured Article, so I don't feel that I can offer a valid opinion -- beyond saying it surpasses my standard for inclusion in Featured List. Might as well submit it & see if it passes; worst case is that it doesn't, & you get more feedback about how to improve it than you have at Peer Review. (Namely one person who is both pressed for time & forgetful.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past I've had this and the Europe list both rejected as FL, so I know it's not the end of the world... Thank you very much for the in depth review. FLN now. Thanks, Matty.007 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)