Wikipedia:Peer review/Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar/archive1

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

Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it at FAC next, and I realized that it hadn't gone through either GA or PR. Would appreciate help polishing off the rough edges. And it's a fun article on the merits. Some of the commemorative coin stories are quite interesting, and with the KKK involved, this one may take the cake. Stone Mountain is today a fairly sedate place, I was there once many years ago and it's pretty dull, I think they had an Olympic event there too, but they got up to something on this one! Thanks.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Brianboulton comments

Lead
  • "An audit in 1928..." An audit of what?
  • "a scaled-down sculpture was not completed until 1970": I suggest "a scaled-down sculpture was eventually completed in 1970"
Background
  • Heights of mountains are normally given in feet and metres, rather than as fractions of miles/km
Inception
  • Not sure about the form on "Mrs" Plane. It is respectful... but later on you call her "Plane".
  • "originally ... originally" close repetition
  • "of perhaps 20 feet (6.1 m) across" - suggest delete "of" ("of" and "across" don't match)
  • "Putting that on Stone Mountain would be like, Borglum supposedly stated, putting a postage stamp on a barn." Clumsy sentence organisation; suggest: "Putting that on Stone Mountain, Borglum supposedly stated, would be like putting a postage stamp on a barn."
  • Redundant words "its purpose was"
  • "soon afterwards, the scope of the project was scaled back" – soon after what?
  • A bit of repetition in "claimed ... claimed ... claim"
  • "President Coolidge proved receptive to the idea" – to what idea? (The coin, presumably, but this needs to be clarified)
Preparation and design
  • The description of the obverse, in the fourth paragraph, should explain the differences between Borglums original model and the finished product, and more clearly why the changes were thought necessary. The original does not show the horses' tails, which are mentioned in the adjacent text.
Production and conflict
  • "101st anniversary of Stonewall Jackson's birth" – maybe just "Jackson", for consistency
  • "These dissensions became public, and in February 1925, the Association fired him." From this, it's not clear who was fired.
  • "terminating Borglum" sounds as though they bumped him off. Perhaps "terminating Borglum's contract".
Marketing and distribution
  • "One means of fundraising that Harvest Campaign administrators decided on was to counterstamp some of the coins for sale at premium prices." It's not clear to non-numismatists why this would be a profitable form of fundraising.
Probably doesn't have much to do with numismatics, which didn't become popular until the 1930s. People like to possess the unique, and all this went, they thought, for a good cause. Such things are not unique to the Jim Crow South; your Royal Mint is selling at a premium the sovereigns struck on the day of Prince George's birth. They aren't any different from any other sovereigns ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Others were marked with U.D.C.". I believe that "U.D.C." should be in quotes, as this is not the general format you have used for these initials, and to accord with your practice later in the section.
  • "A. Steve Deitert in the January 2011 edition of The Numismatist identified them as "Gold Lavalier" and "Silver Lavalier", given to county winners and runners-up for young ladies in selling coins, who would advance to a statewide competition and ball." Some inelegance here; may I offer: "A. Steve Deitert in the January 2011 edition of The Numismatist identified the markings as "Gold Lavalier" and "Silver Lavalier". These coins were given to county winners and runners-up in a selling competition for young ladies". I don't think the statewide competition and bll are particularly worthy of mention.
Aftermath
  • I raised the question of the audit in a lead comment. It seems that it was the Association's books that were audited, and I would reword here to make that explicit
  • "The Atlanta lawyer had begun a political career in the Democratic Party; the scandal finished it". That sounds as though the Democratic Party was finished by the scandal. A slight tweak suggested.
  • On reflection, I am a bit concerned that the first two paragraphs of the Aftermath are slanted towards the Stone Mountain sculpture fiasco rather than the coin, the second paragraph particularly so. I realise that the two issues are intertwined, but the second paragraph seems almost entirely redundant to the coin article.
I think you've got to tell what happened after. The fact that the Harvest Campaign is what sent the whole thing, er, downhill, is a good bridge.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Refs

Something wrong with the formatting of ref 16.

That's me done. Nothing startling here; I agree with your blurb assessment that the background shenanigans make this one of the more interesting of your coin series. One or two questions unanswered, e.g. why did Coolidge blackball mention of Harding? Was it because the financial scandals of the Harding administration were just coming to light? Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review the sources but I don't recall clarity on this one. My personal thought is that he felt the mention of Harding on Borglum's original was an afterthought.
Moore had questioned the placement, which seemed almost an afterthought. He sent a letter to the White House. I haven't seen that letter, but Coolidge disapproved the reference. No reason is stated for Coolidge's action (it's in Taxay) but most likely Moore took a slam at it and Coolidge went along.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I will work through the comments over the next day or so. The delegates have been nibbling around the edges at FAC but they seem to have not gone near Stevens.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping to see some movement at FAC ere long - I'm not going to nom the Diary while there are nearly 70 on the list. I'm sure that Thaddeus won't have to wait too long. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not fussing, though it's always good to see them safely home. I've taken care of your comments, where I haven't said anything.