Talk:Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed my review of your article and find that it meets the bulk of criteria for Good Article status. Before its passage to Good Article status, I just have a few comments, questions, and suggestions, which I have listed below. Once these have been addressed, I will feel confident in passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, I assess that the lede adequately strands alone as a concise overview. This article's lede properly establishes context, explains why the half dollar is notable, and summarizes the most important points; as well as pulls content from each of the articles sections and subsections.
 * I suggest wiki-linking Cincinnati, as it isn't as recognizable as New York of London.
 * The reverse and obverse images of the coin are free for use here as they have both been released into the public domain.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited below, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Inception
 * I know it may seem like overkill, but to provide the reader with further context, I suggest wiki-linking "commemorative coin." I know I searched for it to understand the background and purpose of commemorative coins. The background you have provided is immensely helpful, yet succinct.
 * As stated before, I'd wiki-link the first mention of Cincinnati in the prose, in addition to its first mention in the lede.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preparation and controversy
 * The image of Theodore Thomas is free for use here as it has been released into the public domain.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Design
 * The image of the Sesquicentennial half dollar is free to use here as it has been released into the public domain.
 * I suggest noting Vemeule's Numismatic Art in America by name here.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Release, distribution, and collecting
 * The letter from Melish is free for use here as it has been released into the public domain.
 * Per Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated and placed at the end of a sentence. I would place two internal citations for the sentence regarding the peak of the 1936 commemorative coin boom: the first for Bowers and the second for the Melish letter. The same goes for the sentence regarding the values of coin sets sold by coin dealers.
 * In the fourth paragraph, I suggest giving Flynn and Swiatek/Breen each a sentence regarding their assessments of Melish and this coin.
 * The final sentence of this section is a perfect note in which to end this article--great job!
 * Final note: the contents of the info box should sourced and written inside the article's prose. Especially regarding its value, mass, diameter, composition, etc.
 * I've done those things. Note I've sourced the whole infobox by sourcing the name. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you tremendously for all your diligent work on this article. I've re-reviewed the article and I assess that you have faithfully addressed all my comments and concerns, and so it is my privilege to pass this article to Good Article status! Thanks again and congratulations. -- Caponer (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)