Talk:In God We Trust/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nominator: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) at 09:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Hi @ Thank-you for expanding and nominating this article. I would be reviewing it per Good article criteria. From a quick glance, the article seems well researched and well cited. Since this is an important topic, my review would be quite thorough, and sometimes, I may be a bit nitpicky (if you are fine with it). My general comments about the article would be divided by section, and other suggestions would be separated from the review. Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Overall

 * Overall, I see some missing website/news organization names in the citations. I would also have added Wikipedia links to all the websites, like "United States Government Publishing Office (Govinfo.gov Ref#1), Legal Information Institute (Ref#3), United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury.gov  Ref#8), etc. A quick check of all the references (and adding/linking whatever required) would probably be sufficient. If you want, I can list almost all the issues with the citations.
 * ✅. Some info to the refs was expanded; others were consolidated or rewritten from the basic form. Names of publishers were linked whenever I found it possible.
 * Also, there is almost 66% similarity from sources! Especially from "As Chase was preparing his recommendation ....... coins as shall admit of such motto" paragraphs (See this). Please re-write those paragraphs and everything else which is directly copied. (Though, "quotations" can be exempted) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. The copied text was rewritten (though it had been there before I ever touched the article). Other sources indicating upwards of 30% of plagiarism probability simply have "In God We Trust" or "the national motto" hits numerous times or quotations, so as far as the text is concerned, there should be no longer any plagiarism issues. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * I agree that the remaining copyvio (almost 55% in various sites) is just repeated use of "In God We Trust", "National Motto" or direct quotations. I'll pass the copyvio criteria. Thanks Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason for sandwiching text between two images? (See MOS:SANDWICH) Although it isn't a major concern (especially for me).
 * ✅. Whether it's major or not is irrelevant - MOS says so and should be fixed (even if personally I'd even prefer the sandwiched version more).
 * The reason why I said it's not something major was because many FA's too have sandwiched images. Thanks for fixing that. I have re-aligned all the images to the right (which is by default alignment), and now it seems fine. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please re-write all the citation which are currently in basic ref form. Also, several end footnotes are cited as citations. Identify, and change then to Efn's. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Two citations use basic form but are in fact "Cite court" and "Cite av media", so I left these alone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I have completed my review. Seeing the progress made, I am putting this article On hold for 14 days. Please make the necessary changes, and let me know of any concerns. Thanks!  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead is a summary of all the information available in the article. Since it has repeated information, the lead usually doesn't has citations, except for direct quotations. You may remove citations from the lead, except for some which may be required. (Per MOS:LEADCITE)
 * Currently, the lead has five paragraphs (three of which are 1-2 lined) I suggest merging some paragraphs to have a total of three paras (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
 * Link U.S. Congress
 * ".. is the official motto of the United States[1][2][3] and of the ..." Missing a comma after United States.
 * ".. on the two-cent piece in 1864[8] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957 and on post stamps since ..." → ".. on the two-cent piece in 1864;[8] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957, and on post stamps since ..."
 * ".. in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress ..." Link Joint resolution, and write it in lowercase.
 * Link American currency
 * Link 84th Congress
 * ".. authorised ..." authorised or authorized. I would go with "authorized", as it is American English, and article should be in American English. This is something which too needs to be checked throughout the article.
 * ".. Ninth and Tenth Circuits ..." Missing a comma before "and"
 * Link Supreme Court
 * The source about Nicaragua's coins (Ref#19) has 404 error. Add an archive link.
 * Ping me whenever you've addressed those issues, so that I'll move ahead with the remaining sections. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wikilinks, Nicaragua's coins archived page, American spelling and some rewriting (MOS:LEADLENGTH and your proposals) implemented. Sentence about banknotes and stamps was split.
 * ❌ Oxford comma is only needed for a series of three or more objects enumerated; United States and Florida is only a two-object list, so it shouldn't be there. On the other hand, a list of appelate courts (six, I think) needs one. One more thing: per MOS:LEADCITE [the] presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. It is simply a question of tastes of whether or not to include citations - I prefer to have them just in case; you might want not to have them, but MOS neither encourages nor discourages citing in the introduction, so I'll just use WP:COMMONSENSE, which I believe is preserved here. True, most of the FA/GAs don't have citations in the lead (or have only a few), but per MOS non-excessive presence of citations does not impact quality.
 * No issues, I just missed the point about that phrase being only a two-object list. As to citing in lead, your justification is completely fine (lead usually doesn't have citations, but it having citations in not an issue) Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Origins

 * "The earliest usage recorded in English ..." → "The earliest recorded usage of the motto in English ..."
 * "According to Thomas S. Kidd .. → "According to American historian Thomas S. Kidd ..."
 * " under the name "The Star-Spangled Banner" and serve as one of the arguments to include ..." → " under the title "The Star-Spangled Banner", and serve as one of the arguments to include ..."
 * Be consistent with "US Congress" and "U.S. Congress" (Per MOS:US)
 * I guess the JSTOR journal (Ref#26) isn't freely accessible. Change the url-access parameter.
 * ✅. Sentences rewritten as proposed; U.S. (not US) spelling universally implemented; url-access parameter deleted (in fact, anyone can download the paper subject subject to some conditions, so I thought it was almost like free access; but for the people not to be confused, there is none).
 * You need to have JSTOR access (which required paid subscription) to download papers. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Waiting for further proposals. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing with rest of the article. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Motto on U.S. currency

 * Initial adoption
 * Link Treasury Department
 * God is linked two times in a same para.
 * Ref#32 "See preamble of CSA Constitution: ...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God..." should be converted to a footnote using Template:Efn.
 * Mention that Lincoln was the president.
 * "Chase chose his favorite designs and presented a proposal to Congress for the new designs in late 1863, deciding on the new motto, "In God We Trust," in December 1863." "to Congress" should be "to the Congress"; and the second part of the sentence (dealing with "deciding on the motto ...") is a bit unclear. Maybe re-frame it in two sentences.
 * Ref#40 "According to the Congressional Record...." should be a footnote, and cite the congressional record.
 * "As Chase was preparing .... could be engraved" Too long sentence, and probably a bit unclear. Break into two.
 * "According to Lange, the ..." Who is Lange? He isn't mentioned before in the article, so we don't know is first name (and why is his opinion important?) Specify that he was/is a author/historian/etc.
 * "Banknotes did not ... our Right"." Requires citation.
 * ✅ Changes implemented as proposed; sentence about compound interest/interest-bearing notes linked to Smithsonian, where a detailed description is available.


 * Reactions
 * Be consistent with date styles. In general, you have used Month DD, YYYY; but a few citations have YYYY-MM-DD (like Ref#48 has "1865-12-18")
 * "The American Journal of Numismatics, for example, has suggested" → "The American Journal of Numismatics had suggested"
 * "In Gold we Trust" I honestly misread it two times, until I noticed. (maybe because I have been reading the motto several times throughout the day) The Journal was right! (not a point for you to do anything with)
 * 1907 Saint-Gaudens coins controversy
 * Ref#11 doesn't support the first paragraph.
 * Put Roosevelt's quote under quotation marks. Moreover, the source shows limited information, and the quote cannot be verified. I suggest changing the link to this clip from Newspapers.com, which can be freely accessed.
 * ✅ Changed ref (I mistook it for something else, evidently). Quotation marks added.
 * ❌ Actually, per WP:CITESTYLE, the preferred (numeric) format for citations is YYYY-MM-DD, which is why almost all of the sources have such notation, and the ones that did not were converted to that format. I think that inside the text, all dates are now in MM-DD-YYYY format, as is used in AmE, but another check wouldn't do any harm.
 * Yes. I requested you to be consistent with date styles (whichever way you feel fine), and the date styles are now consistent (Though I made a few changes) Personally, I write dates like "August 9, 2021", just to avoid confusion as-to which is date and which is month. Since you have changed the style (with consistency), I see no issues. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Road to the universal mandate
 * ".. opposition of conservatives against New Deal, ..." link conservative, and add definite article.
 * Spell "Sen." and "Rep." as Senator and Representative. (and check of same in the entire article)
 * Add Template:Abbr to "H. R. 619". H. R. 619
 * Ref#70 should be a Footnote
 * ✅ as proposed.

Adoption and display by government institutions in USA

 * Heading "Adoption and display by government institutions in USA" U.S. or USA?
 * Changed to U.S.


 * Federal government
 * Link House and Senate
 * Fix the disambiguation link to Doubleday in Ref#76.
 * ".. by the House of Representatives by 396 to 9 vote ..." → by the House of Representatives, in a 396 to 9 vote
 * ✅ as proposed.


 * State and local governments
 * Adoption of the national motto in state symbols
 * ".. adopted In God We Trust as part ..." put the motto in quotes. Should they be under single or double quotes? Single are used for quote inside quotes. (per MOS:SINGLE). I see some inconsistency here.
 * ".. House Bill no. ..." Either spell number, or put "no." in abbreviation.
 * ✅ House Bill no. 1145 -> HB 1145; converted to double quotes.


 * Mandating display
 * I don't think the states should be bolded as well as linked. (See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID)
 * "HB 839" Whats HB? House Bill? Please specify.
 * In some places, just "national motto" is written. In other places "In God We Trust"/"national motto ("In God We Trust")" is written. Somethings with quote, sometimes without quotes. What can we implement to improve consistency, maintaining the flow?
 * ✅ Abbreviation added.
 * ❌ Repetition of the same word/phrase all the time isn't exactly correct from a stylistic point of view, so "In God We Trust" or national motto are used interchageably as synonyms. I have removed the third version, which is admittedly redundant. Also, MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID explicitly states that Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead (emphasis mine). So if I decided to link God (or Trust) in "In God We Trust" in the first sentence, that wouldn't be OK; but here the boldface is to underline the start of the new bullet point, as creating subsections for such short paragraphs would go against even common sense, forget about MOS. Tl;dr - this situation is not covered by the MOS rule you cited.
 * My particular issue was with the third inconsistent style. Using "national motto" and "In God We Trust" seems fine. Rest seems fine. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Allowing display
 * "Gov." → "Governor"
 * ✅ as proposed.


 * Legislation pending
 * Content of this section can be updated as legislation is pending, but that has almost no serious effect on article's "stability". Hence, the stability criteria is passed.

Society and culture

 * Religion
 * Why is "my God; in him will I trust" and "In God I trust" used in boldface. MOS:NOBOLD quite strongly disagrees to use boldface for "emphasis in article text".
 * ✅ Emphasis removed.
 * In popular culture, License plates, and Opinion polls
 * I see no issues in these sub-sections.

Controversy

 * Litigation
 * Don't link "'s" in Jefferson's
 * "the US Supreme Court" Change to U.S. Supreme court,and check for other instances too.
 * The sentence "Congressmen were afraid that ... unconstitutional." needs a bit clarification. Try to re-phrase.
 * "the US District Court for the Western District of Texas" Perhaps, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
 * Link Certiorari
 * "US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio" Perhaps, U.S.
 * ✅ as proposed.

Usage in other countries

 * No issues

Other suggestions

 * Add ALT text to every image.
 * ✅ to most images, where the normal caption does not describe it well enough.
 * Although not necessary, I would have changed the lead image to this image File:Flickr - USCapitol - "In God We Trust" Plaque.jpg, as (a) :In God We Trust" can barely be seen without zooming. (b) we already have various currency images.
 * Personally, I see no reason to do so. There is quite a lot of images right now and AFAIK this is not the instance of usage people would evoke at once. I bet most would say about coins and banknotes, then probably state symbols (because national motto can't be really made into an image).
 * I agree. My only concern was regarding whether the reader could actually even read "In God We Trust" in the banknote or not; but it was merely a suggestion, and it is completely upto you. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The image gallery in the end has a lot of images. WP:GALLERY states that gallery shouldn't be added just for decoration, but only include those images that have (and add) encyclopedia value to the article. "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." I see that the gallery here doesn't add any encyclopedia value, and the reader can't even read "In God We Trust" properly without zooming. Although I have reviewed licences for all the images (including those in the gallery) I would suggest removing it. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ And so I did. I believed that one or two images from the gallery could be OK; I've also changed the House of Representin' image to one with a closer zoom on that.

Image review

 * File:Chase to Pollock 1863-12-09 motto only.png Requires source link
 * ❌. Unable to find one. Sorry. On the other hand, neither good article criteria nor featured article criteria requires that the source link be provided; it only requires an acceptable license status, and public domain surely is (there can actually be no doubt about that, as this work is almost 150 y.o. and the author was a federal govt worker).
 * No issues. I agree that GA criteria doesn't asks for this, but FA's and FL's should have image links. (not necessary if PD if self justified, as in this case) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rest all images seem fine. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Review of changes

 * , most of the changes you have proposed have been implemented; some weren't, for which the reasons have been provided above. Should you have any more suggestions or questions, please write me. Thank you for your time spent on the review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing almost everything. I followed your changes, and they have further improved the quality of the article. I feel that the article definitely meets the Good Article criteria, and deserved to be listed. Therefore, I am Passing this article and listing it as a Good Article. I appreciate your work on this article and another articles. It has been a pleasure reviewing and reading the article. Thanks, and congratulations!  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)