# Talk:Castaing machine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Castaing machine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Duplication Detector run on all online sourcing found no copyvio, no close paraphrasing.
No lists in the article.
Prose flows well, and no spelling or grammar errors found.
Structured within the guidelines of the Manual of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
Has a reference section in compliance with MOS.
No inline citations in the References section point to two sources under Bibliography: de Bazinghen, Ure. Perhaps those should be moved to a Further Reading section at the bottom.
No original research evident.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Since the article was created in main space on January 19, 2015,  RHM22 has been the primary editor, with only half a dozen minor edits by others.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): 
Images are in compliance with WP:IUP
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All in compliance with MOS:IMAGES.
Each image is captioned, clearly defining what the reader is looking at.
Lead image is a very clear digital photo of the machine itself, with several different resolutions that give the reader an up close view of the details of the working parts of it.
Other images include engineer Aubin Olivier, an 18th century illustration of the machine in use, and detailed close-ups of coins created by the machine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Maile66 Thank you very much for the thorough review! I do use Ure as an inline citation (near the end of the article), but de Bazinghen is indeed unused. It was used in an earlier draft, which is why the mention of it remained in the bibliography. I have moved it to a 'Further reading' section as suggested.-RHM22 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.  This passes.  And thank you for writing it.  I've always wondered why coins have the serrated edges, and you've provided an answer to my curiosity. Well done. — Maile  (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! I'm glad that you enjoyed the article, and that you were able to solve one of those everyday mysteries. Many people believe that the reeding is applied to aid in identification by the blind, but that's probably why they're still in use, since clipping is no longer a problem. The fact that the U.S. five-cent coin is larger than the ten-cent coin also has its origins in precious metals, but that is a story for a different article.-RHM22 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)