Talk:Louisiana Purchase Exposition gold dollar

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--comments in the next 1-2 days. I actually might try to tackle all four of your new coin nominations today; your articles are usually such quick passes that there's no reason to make them wait in the queue. We'll see if I get to it. Thanks as always for the contributions, and I hope things are continuing to improve for you on the health front. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My health has improved, thanks, just about back to normal. Glad for your efforts on any or all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks ripe for promotion. I've made a few tweaks here and there; feel free to reverse any with which you disagree, as I'm not an expert in this area. (I am an expert in the St. Louis World's Fair, though, as is everyone from here. You wouldn't believe how much St. Louisans still talk about the fair, the last moment our city could be considered one of the world's major destinations--curse Chicago and its railroads--)

• "and stating that the changes were being made at Roberts's suggestion." --it seems unlikely that the new reverse stated that-- maybe something like "the new design for the reverse"?
• "noting that the gold dollar of the Panama-Pacific " -- "noted" is discouraged per WP:WTW; I've replaced this with "stating" if that's all right. This is more guideline than policy, though, so if you feel strongly, feel free to revert.

That's all I got; once that first point is fixed, this is probably ready to pass. I'll begin the checklist in a second to make sure I'm not missing anything. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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 clear, save for one minor point above; spotchecks show no issues.
	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.
	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; there's one minor grammar point above that should be addressed, but there's no reason to put the article on hold for it--I trust you to get it.

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.

Suggested correction: confusing shortened footnotes

The shortened footnotes refer to a work called "Bowers Encyclopedia, Part [n]", while the full references are to Bowers, Q. David. "Chapter 9: Gold commemoratives, Chapter [n]"—"encyclopedia" does not appear in the title, and "part" is replaced with "chapter". Please change where appropriate.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've switched the "chapter" to "part". On the other, I do not believe you are correct, the pages are from the digital edition of the book whose title is laid out in the refs, and which is stated on the webpages.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which form is correct—I only think that the title used in the footnotes should match the full bibliography. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What about "Bowers, Encyclopedia?

Never mind about the "encyclopedia" part: my mistake. I didn't read the full bibliographic reference until the end. Thank you for fixing the chapter/part confusion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702084102/http://money.org/membership/about-the-ana/ana-presidents.aspx to http://www.money.org/membership/about-the-ana/ana-presidents.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a napoleon and jefferson official souvenir with map of united states on the back

Do you think it was minted with the others coins 2600:1016:B02A:7CC3:2C1D:34FB:23:6EEA (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be, from your description, the medal described here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)