Talk:Three-cent silver/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to do the review. I await your comments with interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Wehwalt, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and find that it meets the bulk of criteria for Good Article status. Before its passage to Good Article status, I just have a few comments, questions, and suggestions, which I have listed below. Once these have been addressed, I will feel confident in passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I assess that the lede adequately strands alone as a concise overview. This article's lede properly establishes context, explains why the three-cent silver is notable, and summarizes the most important points; as well as pulls content from each of the articles sections and subsections.
• The template is beautifully formatted and all its content is sourced by references below.
• The five images of the coin are released into the public domain and are therefore acceptable to use here in this article.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited below, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Inception

• Eastern U.S. and Western U.S. were mentioned above in the Background section, but Eastern United States is mentioned here. While this isn't a deal breaker, I would suggest that U.S. or United States be used consistently throughout the article when denoting a certain geographic region.
• Would it be more appropriate to state that the coin would weigh three-tenths as much versus three-tenth?
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preparation

• The image of the Pattern coin struck to Peale's design for the three-cent piece in silver is released into the public domain and is hereby acceptable for use in this article.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Design

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Production

• The image of the Spanish colonial two-reales piece is released into the public domain and is free to use here.
• In the second paragraph of the Type 1 (1851–1853) subsection, I suggest using consumer to shopper. But this is merely a suggestion.

I think it should stand. Carothers says "customer", if you are interested. I'm not wedded to shopper, I just think it's more to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• If the name is Philadelphia newspaper is unknown, it can be referred to as One Philadelphia newspaper...

It's not mentioned in Carothers. He footnotes to Hunt's Merchants Magazine, Sumner's History of American Currency and to some government reports, none of which I own. I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Collecting

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Mintages and rarity

• The table is beautifully formatted and the circulation strikes have an inline citation for the contents below. An inline citation is also needed for the proofs column header.

It's the same source. I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Thank you indeed for the review. Assuming it meets standards, it is on the fast track for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this article more than meets Featured Article status in its current form. I doubt it will face much opposition or requests for edits or corrections. I thank you for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia and look forward to your next article. Congratulations on another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for your kind words and your help in improving it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)