Talk:United States Assay Commission/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Monty845 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am starting a GA review of this article. Monty₈₄₅ 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Various issues discussed below  Done

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Issue with a word to watch in the lead  Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I think the article is acceptably focused, there are some points that are a bit far into minutia, but they are typically interesting tidbits of information and I think they are still within a reasonable scope of the article. They are not discussed at a length long enough to be digressions under the GA criteria.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Placing the review on hold, The article is very good overall, and I don't think any of the issues I've identified should be to hard to correct or discuss. Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

   In my opinion the article now meets or exceeds the good article criteria. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Suggestions

The following are my suggestions for the article, I will try to distinguish between those suggestions that I feel are required to obtain GA status, and those that are optional.

Lead

"...for the most part the Commission, which was freshly appointed each year consisted of prominent Americans, notably including numismatists." Should there be another comma after year?  Done

• "Notably" in the above - according to who? (GA criteria 1 - words to watch)  Done

• I don't think it is necessary to refer to Carter as President twice in the same sentence, it makes the reader think different presidents took each action. (Not a GA issue) Done
• "In 1971, the Commission had the first time had no gold or silver to test..." does not appear to be grammatically correct. (GA criteria 1 - clear an concise)  Done

Founding and early days

• "No meetings took place; the Mint was not yet striking gold or silver." "Minting of silver began in 1794 and gold in 1795; however the officials did not meet then." It seems repetitive to keeping saying no meetings took place, it is later mentioned when the first meeting took place. I would suggest one sentence details when minting started, then go to on to the first pieces being saved for assay, after which it is stated when the first meeting did take place. (GA criteria 1 - clear an concise)  Done
• "...to Philadelphia for the assay." The citations after that sentence are not in order, [6][4] (Not a GA issue)  Done

Later years and abolition

• "It provided the procedure for putting them, sealing them in envelopes..." I'm not sure that works grammatically, is it trying to say: "...putting them in envelopes, sealing the envelopes..."? (GA criteria 1 - clear an concise)  Done

Functions and activities

• "Assay commissioners each year were placed on one of three committees in most years" contradicts itself, each year vs most years. (GA criteria 1 - clear an concise)  Done
• "Every Assay Commission passed the coinage which it was called upon to examine." is that consistent with the claims from earlier sections about the errors discovered by the commission? (GA Criteria 2 - Factually accurate)

Yes, they would report the underweight coin (that is how we know about them) but still pass the coinage as a whole. These were minor glitches. In 1885 they sent a note to the President saying how minor it was and how he should not worry about it.

I would suggest mentioning that when you talk about them passing all the coinage, but based on your response its not a GA issue.  Done

Medals

• "in their work on Assay Commission medals, theorizes" as it is talking about 2 subjects, should it be theorize? (GA Criteria 1 - Grammar)  Done
• "(Secretary of the Treasury..." is missing a close parenthesis. (GA criteria 1 - clear and concise)  Done
• "...no other medal is believed to exist with as many as 200 specimens." seems awkwardly phrased. (Not a GA Issue)

I do not have an obvious improvement on the last one. Mintages were sometimes announced sometimes not. I'm basing that on an estimate.

My concern isn't the accuracy, it just seems very awkwardly phrased, perhaps replacing "as many" with "more than"  Done

Other

• Should there be a note in the info box that the $2,500 budget is historical (I assume it has no budget after being abolished) (Not a GA Issue)

I don't think it is necessary; the reader knows it was abolished in 1980. If you like I can add (1980 dollars) after that.

I don't know if you really need to, I was just thinking it would be nice if it was clear that it was no longer funded, but your probably right that a reader will figure as much.  Done

• Are there any additional categories that would apply to the article? (Not a GA Issue)

If I find any I will add them but I find such things tend to take care of themselves.

• Did the Assay commission have a separate seal from the treasury department, or was the treasury dept seal in the info box used by the commission? (Maybe a GA issue)

No, I asked Roger Burdette, the historian that question and he says he has never seen one. I used the historic Treasury seal which was changed in 1968 btw. Purely decoration.

• Check dablinks, consider fixing. (Not a GA Issue)  Done

I will look through again tomorrow to make sure I haven't missed anything, but I think that is it for suggestions. Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I think I took care of everything, or else explained what I was doing. Please let me know if I missed anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to the still open points, the rest are either done, or responded to. Monty₈₄₅ 17:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good, promoting. As it appears to you plan to move the article to FA, I think you should consider if the bit about double eagles in the commissioners section is tangential to the main article, as mentioned in the template above, I don't think it is a GA issue, and its an interesting tidbit, but someone may take issue with it. I'm not even saying it necessarily will be an issue, but you should consider it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)