Talk:Memento dollar

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 14:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1914 Memento Dollar

• ... that the first silver dollars of the Republic of China were crudely-designed mementos (pictured)?

• Source: Kann, Eduard (1953). Illustrated Catalog of Chinese Coins (Gold, Silver, Nickel & Aluminum). pp. 188-189

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Giorgina Reid

Created by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 79 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

• Long enough, new enough. Well written and seems compliant with policy. My only worry is that the Kann book this is sourced to is self published, but from searching he was an established subject matter expert who sees use by others, so I think it's fine. I cannot find a copy of the book but I will AGF. Good to go. Image is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 04:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Will review this in a few days! Arconning (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

• denominations of the coin was also produced,, I'm guessing it should be "were"
  • Fixed. - G

Background

• No issues.

Design and production

• No issues.

Later production

• the reëmergence, I think this explains itself hehe
  • This is correct according to some style guides, and MoS says nothing for or against it. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Generalissima Oh I thought this was a grammar issue, thanks for the new info! Arconning (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Media

• All five media have proper licenses and are used appropriately in the article.

Refs

• I can't really access the first source so AGF. The following three sources are suitable. :)
• Earwig picks up nothing. Manual check is alright as well.

Misc.

• No ongoing edit war, broad and focused info, neutral.

Comments

• @Generalissima: Here are my short comments! Hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Arconning: Okie dokie, responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.