Wikipedia:Peer review/Franklin half dollar/archive1

Franklin half dollar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd be grateful for comments on it. It's a short article, don't worry.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

You said short article, so here I am.

Lead

• The "("Mint")" and "("Commission")" should be removed. I can see what they're for, but I'm not sure they are helpful or clear.
• "pictures patriot Benjamin Franklin" I suggest changing "patriot" to something else. It seems overly emotive for an encyclopaedia and isn't descriptive at all. Maybe say he's a founding father or something.
• "(a small eagle was placed to the right of the bell to fulfill legal requirements)" This should be rewritten, taken out of brackets and added properly to the sentence or removed. Currently it feels like bad prose, and also leaves me wondering what the legal requirements are.
• "for a Franklin half." "Franklin half" sounds like a shortcut to me, but if it's not, ignore this comment.
• I've seen it suggested by others that the lead has information from every section. It would be well worth adding to the lead you have, there's a whole paragraph left to fill!

Background and selection

• "Franklin had opposed putting portraits on coins; in a 1948 interview, Ross noted that Franklin only knew of royalty on coins, and presumably would have no great objection to the republic he helped found honoring him in this way." This prima facie seems contradictory. Did Franklin change his mind later in life? I assume the 1948 interview definitely wasn't with him.

True. Apparently Franklin said that he preferred proverbs to appear on coins, and this was discovered by the press in 1948. Ross was ducking and covering.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph doesn't flow well to me, consider removing "Sinnock" once or twice or combining sentences.
• When did the eagle coinage laws come about?
• What is the Commission of Fine Arts and is it usually asked for coinage advice?
• Wililink to Roosevelt Dime when it appears here.
• I suggest moving the picture down a couple of paragraphs, where it is better related.

Release and Production

• John W. Snyder is not mentioned before. When did it get his approval?
• "Franklin became the fifth person to be honored by the issuance of a regular-issue US coin, after Lincoln, Roosevelt, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and the first non-President." Perhaps move the fragment about first non president to the start of this sentence?
• Flesh out "small "o" in "of" was an error," not immediately clear it refers to the United States of America on the reverse.
• I'm not sure the Ross photo adds, especially as it looks like a coin itself.

Collecting

• "No Franklin half dollar is rare today" - Clarify this is no date of Franklin half dollar, otherwise it implies (to me) multiple types of Franklin half dollars.
• "the key dates in this series are the 1948, 1949-S, 1953 and 1955" What makes these key dates?
• "during when sliver prices reached record levels in 1979–1980." Fix grammar.
• "Today, the 1962 half in MS-65 condition sells for about $145, second only to the 1953-S in price in that grade." Why are just these two mentioned? In addition, try to explain MS and grade, numismatic terminology may not be understood be many.
• Make the bibliography section a subsection of references, just for clarity.

I liked this article, and was surprised by the fact halfdollars were once in demand. Anyway, hope my comments helped, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you liked it. I will work to implement these changes. Thank you for the careful work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Well, okay, you didn't SAY it was going to FAC, but we know you...)
  • Decide on either giving the state abbreviations or not in the bibliography - you currently have New York, N.Y. for one source, but just New York for another.
  • What makes http://www.coincommunity.com/coin_histories/half_dollar_1948_franklin.asp a high quality reliable source?
  • Lead: "reeded edge"? Jargon?
  • Lead: "...to prepare designs for a Franklin half." Franklin half WHAT?
  • Lead: Okay, so they got complaints about the initials, but did they do anything about them?
  • Background: You already linked Ross in the lead, and you're not linking anything else linked in the lead, so it shouldn't be linked here
  • Background: I generally prefer "after 1940" to the slightly stilted "from 1940"
  • Background: Suggest replacing the second usage of "cent" in the last sentence of the second paragraph with "penny"
  • When did Ross first think about putting Franklin on a coin?
  • Background: Third paragraph, the prose flow here is very choppy, suggest some rewriting, including trying to eliminate the "Sinnock..." "Sinnock..." sentence starts in the middle.
  • Background: Suggest jsut a tad more on the coinage laws that required the eagle - either a link or a sentence.
  • You repeat the "numismatic writer" description for Taxay in the third AND fourth paragraphs. You only need one.
  • Release: Link for "savings bonds"?
  • Release: Suggest rewriting the last sentence of the first paragraph to "Franklin became the first non-President honored by placement on a regular-issue US coin, and only the fifth person in total, after Lincoln, Roosevelt, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson."
  • Linking: YOu've got links for things in the lead that are repeated in the body of the article. THis article isn't so long that you need to repeat the links from the lead into the body of the article.
  • Collecting: "great coin shortage of 1964" - link to article?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)