Talk:Jefferson nickel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A (prose):
 * "reverse is again the original by Felix Schlag;" - why "again"?
 * Please reword: "25-year term during which it could only be replaced by Congress," but you are addressing what happened after the 25 years were up. Sentences need to hang together.
 * "Mint looked into reducing its use of it."->"Mint looked into reducing its nickel use."
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * How many were circulated?
 * That's a bit of a moving target, since billions are struck every year. I'll see if I can find a total to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article represents significant work by its authors, but a few points need further work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All done (though I went a slightly different route on one of them) except the number. What are you looking for?  The total number?     The number per year?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that the total number would be more impressive, but I defer to your judgment. Racepacket (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps recent figures would be more helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article represents significant work by its authors, but a few points need further work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All done (though I went a slightly different route on one of them) except the number. What are you looking for?  The total number?     The number per year?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that the total number would be more impressive, but I defer to your judgment. Racepacket (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps recent figures would be more helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that the total number would be more impressive, but I defer to your judgment. Racepacket (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps recent figures would be more helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a different point, why did you use the  tags to quote the two phrases on the coin? It strikes me as a bit distracting. Would another tag be more consistent with the MOS? Perhaps you could take another look at it? Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what I've used before for coin legends, do you have another suggestion?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about  or otherwise using a different font? Racepacket (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "appearing above Monticello." mean "appearing above the image of Monticello." or "appearing above the word Monticello."? Racepacket (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not address the long-term impact of the 2003 law. I read it that Monticello must stay on the nickel until Congress acts again, even after another 25 years. Racepacket (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice catch! I've included that now.  I just took the mottos out, How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I very interesting article. Thank you for your hard work. Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)