Talk:Liberty Head nickel/GA1

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


 * Comment: One issue I see after a brief review is that the opening mentions the 1913 five coin issue twice. I suggest it only be raised once in the opening. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the first mention. I think that there is a need to mention it in connection with the timeframe, and then mention the numismatic 1913 aspect.  It would be tough to bring them together.  BTW, I am aware we don't have an image of a "NO CENTS" nickel, I'm working on that and hope to have one by Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Images taken care of. Not the best condition on the coins, but as I paid for them, they will have to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

General Comments: These are comments that arise as I read through the article. Some of them have to do with language; I'm not comfortable enough with my own writing as to actually attempt any copyediting, so I rather leave it up to you to decide whether my comment is sensible or not. The following comments have little bearing on the GA review.


 * "It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912" → "It was circulated between 1883 and 1912" Not that big of the deal, but perhaps the original version has some redundancy ("struck for circulation" versus "circulated").
 * "...at least five pieces were surreptitiously struck dated 1913." → What do you mean by "surreptitiously struck"? Unauthorized? Admittedly, it might be because I don't know the word very well (I had to look it up), so it's difficult for me to put into the context of the sentence.
 * I didn't find it clear that the second paragraph of the lead was referring to the Liberty Head nickel. As such, I think the following change would be positive: "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883." → "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883 as the Liberty Head nickle." (Or, something similar, at least.)
 * "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913." → I think this would be clearer as follows, "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, with a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, which went into production in February 1913."
 * "Well-known sculptor James Earle Fraser approached Treasury officials, who were impressed with his work." → Were they impressed with his work before he approached them, or after? This sentence seems to suggest the former, but I am just making sure.
 * The table at the end is sort of awkward, largely because it hurts the article aesthetically. I think the table would look nicer if it was designed with six columns, instead of two (or nine, instead of three; or maybe seven, since only two years have marks).

Now, for the review;


 * Well-written: The language is clear and concise, and the article follows the manual of style.
 * Factually accurate and verifiable: Citations and references look good.
 * Broad in its coverage: Yes.
 * Neutral: Yes (no random insertions of, "man, this nickle sucks!")
 * Stable: Yes.
 * Illustrated: Yes, and the image tags are all legitimate.

Therefore, I see no reason this should not pass as a good article. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)