| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. Sorry about the fuzzy images, I did the best I could but it was difficult.
Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been a long wait but I will do it this weekend) Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: Not many issues here; the usual professional job, and of course the now expected inconvenient deaths which seem to haunt every generation of US coinage history. Most of these points can be easily fixed.
- Lead
- "The number of stars on the obverse was initially intended to track the number of states in the Union, but that idea was eventually abandoned in favor of using 13 stars in honor of the original states." There are 15 stars on the illustrated obverse. I understand why, but readers may wonder about this; is "eventually abandoned" a little vague?
- Inception
- "Coinage of eagles followed shortly afterwards, although the exact date is uncertain." Are we talking here about the Turban Head Eagle, or some predecessor? If is indeed the Turban Head, shouldn't this information be given in the Production rather than the Inception setion? We need to read about Design issues before details of their production, or about Washington's supposed hoard.
- Design
- "They are identical to designs used on other silver and gold coins of the period, the more so since..." Identical is identical; there can't be any "the more so".
- Thoughts on a rephrase? Modern coins say their value, the 10p coin in your pocket says what it is. The Turban Head gold coins have identical designs, and do not say their value (this was added after 1804; they kept striking the smaller pieces.
- "In support of that position"; I'd say: "In support of his argument..."
- Production
- "it struck few eagles then, giving priority to more popular coins". Can you clarify "then", e.g. "in those years"?
- "The eagle was especially desired by exporters, as the larger size and value made it more convenient to handle." How does this reconcile with the statement earlier in the section: "The eagle ... was too high in value for many transactions, and rapidly became unpopular."?
- It was unpopular as a spending coin, yes. However, it was very popular as a coin to be melted. It takes half the time to count them than for half eagles of the same value.
- 1894 issues
- "Although the Mint coined 1803-dated eagles into 1804..." The "into" is a little confusing Perhaps "in", or "after the start of"
- What is "Fine-12" condition?
- We have a very brief explanation of coin grading at Mint state, but it is already linked in that sentence.
- The sudden mention of the "Plain 4 pieces" had me scurrying back to see if I had missed something. I gather, however, that you are referring to the four that were minted as gifts to foreign rulers. This needs to be clarified, together with an explanation of this name.
- What is the basis for Albanese's belief goiven in the final sentence?
- Hearsay and rumour, from his experience as a coin dealer who has dealt with this series.
That is all. Sorry to have taken so long. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. You have my admiration for doing so many reviews, my resolutions to do more expire regularly. Probably United States Bicentennial coinage will be next. Unhappily, while the Bicentennial coins were a mixed bag, successes and failures on different levels, they are not really very exciting, so I am hopeful I will find more sources. I intend to let the coin area lie for a while after the ones I have in process, I should go back and finish work on the R&H series. That will take some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)