Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This one's next. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Again, solid research and solid prose; clearly close to promotion. I'll hold this one until you've had a chance to address the bottom three points here.

  • "the twenty-cent piece was made a legal tender up to five dollars" -- Am I understanding this phrase right that you couldn't use, say, 30 of them for a payment of six dollars? Interesting.
You are correct. Remember, we are not dealing with a token here, but a dollar defined by the gold standard, which the US was for all intents and purposes on. A full-weight gold coin was worth exactly what it said, it contained, say, ten dollars in gold if you melted it down. If you melted down $6 in twenty-cent pieces in 1875, you would have silver worth somewhat less than six dollars (I have the historic values of silver in my references). The dollar was defined as gold. Silver and base metal pieces had limited legal tender status.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • " Vermeule admitted the pattern designs made by Barber, especially the "Liberty by the Seashore" design, which the historian believes owe a debt to the British copper coins of that period depicting Britannia—Barber was an Englishman by birth." -- this sentence seems to get a little confused--what is it that Vermeule is admitting here? I wonder if this could be untangled into two sentences--also, "admitted" should probably be avoided per WP:WTW in favor of "said" or "wrote".
It should have been "admired". Typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "He deems it appropriate" -- tense seems to be shifting here; Vermeule's other comments were relayed in past tense
  • ""The new twenty-cent coin". The New York Times. April 29, 1875. Retrieved June 20, 2013." -- is this entry correct? The paper seems to be the Mansfield Herald
I've fixed the remainder. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose points above.
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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
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 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA