Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Numismatic WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's money related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Numismatics}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Numismatic articles by quality and Category:Numismatic articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Numismatics}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
2. Someone put a {{WikiProject Numismatics}} template on an article, but it's not a numismatic related topic. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article). If User:WatchlistBot did it, you can add it to the exclusion list for the project (User:WatchlistBot/Numismatics to make sure that it will not be retagged again.
3. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
4. How can I get an article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
5. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Numismatics WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
8. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
9. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Numismatics}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Numismatics|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class numismatic articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class numismatic articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class numismatic articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class numismatic articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class numismatic articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class numismatic articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class numismatic articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class numismatic articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class numismatic articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class numismatic articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class numismatic articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class numismatic articles) Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class numismatic articles)  FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class numismatic articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class numismatic articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class numismatic articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class numismatic articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class numismatic articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class numismatic articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed numismatic articles) ???


An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Numismatics}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Numismatics|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance numismatic articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance numismatic articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance numismatic articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance numismatic articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance numismatic articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance numismatic articles)  ??? 

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion] Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. 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:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. 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:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to collectors.

Note that the rating need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; equally well-known topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which this is the case. Thus, the rating given to topics which may seem obscure to an editor from one country—but which are well-known in another—should correspond to the higher level of notability in the second country.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Well-known to the general reader
The subject is well-known to people who are not familiar with numismatics. It is often, but not always, a significant cultural icon. 		Euro
High Well-known to a reader with casual numismatic knowledge, or of potential interest to a casual reader
The subject is known to a significant number of casual numismatists, and/or likely to be of some interest to a reader with no special interest in numismatics. 		All circulating currencies
Mid Known or of interest to a reader with an interest in numismatics
The subject is not well-known, but also not obscure to a reader with an interest in numismatics. The subject is unlikely to be interesting to a non-specialist. 		All historical currencies
Low Everything else
The subject is not well-known or particularly significant even to someone with a good knowledge of numismatics. 		All mints, numismatists, numismatic associations, numismatics journals, and currency laws and acts

Statistics

Current status

Numismatic articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 7 82 28 118
FL 3 3 6
FM 564 564
GA 1 1 13 13 7 35
B 9 120 147 43 11 330
C 11 66 144 221 27 469
Start 14 199 671 615 80 1,579
Stub 39 540 378 34 991
List 2 14 47 53 1 10 127
Category 895 895
Disambig 1 1 54 56
File 956 956
Portal 25 25
Project 33 33
Redirect 1 9 62 35 775 882
Template 214 214
Other 6 6
Assessed 39 458 1,710 1,387 3,523 169 7,286
Unassessed 2 31 33
Total 39 458 1,710 1,389 3,523 200 7,319
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 16,777 Ω = 4.76

Note: This table is generated daily by a script, and is not updated in real time.


Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month
May 2006 June 2006
FA # % # %
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Unassessed
Top
High
Mid
Total

Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
June 2006
FA # %
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Unassessed
Total

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

  • I'd like to request assessment and review of Coin Collecting [1]. I've finished a major copy edit of this piece and would like further guidance/opinion on what's required to bring this article to GA status. Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate a rating for the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria). A set of wikipedians have been working in the article series Euro gold and silver commemorative coins to cover all euro collectors coins, and the Austrian article is one of the almost completed (we also have in very good shape Belgium, Finland and Ireland). Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Austria's is already at B, I suggest trying to take it thru the GA process. Joe I 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will not pass, since the images are used under the fair use rationale and the policy says that no non-fair iamges can be used for GA. I tried to push it for FL (like Belgium) but it did not pass because of that. Since we are never going to receive the license to freely use those images, I simply gave up. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The GA criteria states that fair use rationale must be provided. I only looked thru the first section, but all the images did have such rationale, under the summary heading. The exact same rationale used in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) images. As long as all images have such, it will not play a role in GA or FA consideration. Joe I 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Incorrect: check the archives of the discussion to promote it to feature list, it's in the talk page of the article, aparently there is a section of one policy that is supposed to meassure the number of non-free images within an article. You do not need to convince me, I do wnat to promote all those articles (in a very good shape we have Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Malta, Slovenia, Cyprus and Slovakia) You will find in the archived discussion for Austria the reasons why it was not promoted. The whole copy/edit is done, ignore that, focus in the images argument. Perhaps you can help to convince a few administrators to change the policy, since it does not make sense for articles like this one. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Bolivian peso has been expanded considerably beyond stub class and should be reassessed. Sivasova (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's not a stub anylonger, tho significant improvements need to be made, use of inline refs and wikilinks most notably. Joe I 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, start/mid. Joe I 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review the rating of Odessa Numismatics Museum. The article has been changed.Vlad Fedchenko 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left it a "b". The next logical choice would be "GA" which you must pass the GA process. Joe I 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the current rating of Bracteate as Mid importance is doubtful, I believe this subject should be High since many people are devoted to the study of these ancient coins and they play an important role in the history of numismatics. Nixdorf 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance ranking justified. Talk:Bracteate Joe I 10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • German mark has not yet been rated. Alr 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, no need to retract. :) Joe I 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Start class I would say. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to a B class. Joe I 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Start class I would say. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to start class. Joe I 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pound sterling and euro are. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to top importance. Joe I 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mark them as B, but some people might consider them GA. I can't decide. -- Chochopk 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GA is reserved for articles which are officially Wikipedia:Good articles. I think quality between B and GA can be the same, although B can also be not quite there yet. Ingrid 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, "B High"  :) Joe I 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and Done, "B High"  :) Joe I 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) Joe I 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a B-class. I changed it to start. --Chochopk 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And mid importance. --Chochopk 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to high import, it's a circulatin currenciy, anyone from Macedania would think it important. I think all cirrculating currencies should atleast be high. Joe I 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Done :) 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Done Joe I 09:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Nice, Add refs it'll be close to GA. Joe I 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manx pound is still listed as a stub, yet I think it is way past that point. Would some kind project person please review it? TIA. --Eliyahu S Talk 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done  :) Joe I 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the {{money-stub}}, Joe I, but I was hoping to get a more definitive assessment, like did we make it B class yet? Thanks. --Eliyahu S Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe I, now I see our B! :-) --Eliyahu S Talk 07:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed both Ukrainian hryvnia and Belarusian ruble to B-high. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! —dima/s-ko/ 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Joe I 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?? Ultimately, all numismatic article should be assess, right? I'm just requesting because I can't do that now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, asking for assesment, I thought you meant reassesment, like something went terribly wrong the first time. :) I'll be able to start later. Joe I 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean individual article like Russian ruble, Belarusian ruble. Just the general ones. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Although there is some inconsistancies, all but Thaler and Rupee are disambig pages. Joe I 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical exchange rates of Argentine currency has no rating yet. --Alpertron 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it. Joe I 14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the start status for the Canadian currency tactile feature is correct or not. The article is very short, granted, but I don't think it's incomplete. Some articles just are short by nature. For disclosure purposes, I should mention that I created the article.Martin-C 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as how short it is and the lack of references combined will keep this as a start. Joe I 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just browsing GA cats and Guinea (British coin) is rated as GA - but I don't see the icon or a link to the GA assessment. Paxse 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm could be worth checking out all 19 articles in Category:GA-Class numismatic articles - just a thought. Cheers, Paxse 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went thru Category:GA-Class numismatic articles. Almost all were not GA. Joe I 08:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revaluation of 1974 aluminum cent. Does not seem to be Start Class quality.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. As requested, I've reviewed the article. I promoted it from Start class on the quality scale to B class. A collaborative effort could raise this to A. I see this as a potential gem of an article, limited by lack of available reference material/sources. --Whoosit (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of people on United States banknotes has been promoted to a Featured List. Could this please be reflected in the assessment of the list? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to request an importance reassessment for Perth Mint, Royal Canadian Mint and all articles on extant national bullion mints currently rated as low importance. IMO the institutions that produce numismatic coins are central to the discussion of numismatics; and the low quality of Perth Mint would be easy to point to as evidence that this WikiProject was ineffective. NeonMerlin 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to request an assessment of the Half Sovereign article. I have made significant edits and believe it is above the quality of a stub article [2]. I appreciate any feedback. I work for a numismatist and would like to continue editing the article, although I won't have time in the near future. Platonist Rainbow (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Assessment&oldid=1142557187"