Talk:Auto Dollar/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Arconning · (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 17:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Here is everything that needs to be addressed. This review is a token of my appreciation. Arconning (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Arconning: Alright, I think everything is addressed :). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk · contribs)

Prose and MoS

Infobox

No issues.

Lead

the Kweichow Auto Dollar, remove the since it's already used before the or. *Optional
one-yuan, remove hyphen.

Background

of Chinese provinces., add the after of.
centrally-produced, remove hyphen since they're supposed to be separate words.
Qing government delayed, add was after government.
quantities of dragon dollars, Displacing the dragon dollar designs, capitalize Dragon per original article linked.

Design and history

Although generally serving, use used instead of last word to be constant with the verb tenses.
It was only minted in that year., remove in.
and a design not matching with, and a design that does not match any.
weight — seven, remove spaces between.

Legacy and collecting

Numismatic Guaranty Company,, remove comma.

Refs

References are formatted properly, all seem reliable.

Spotchecks

Earwig shows "unlikely".
Manual check, seems fine.

Images

Images have proper licenses, are relevant to the article. Congrats on teaching your friend to upload to Commons!

Misc

No ongoing edit war, pretty broad knowledge considering it's a coin made like over a hundred years ago, pretty neutral in my opinion.

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.