Talk:Three-cent silver/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to do the review. I await your comments with interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


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

, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-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, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 23:02, 9 March 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 three-cent silver is notable, and summarizes the most important points; as well as pulls content from each of the articles sections and subsections.
 * The template is beautifully formatted and all its content is sourced by references below.
 * The five images of the coin are released into the public domain and are therefore acceptable to use here in this article.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited below, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Background
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Inception
 * Eastern U.S. and Western U.S. were mentioned above in the Background section, but Eastern United States is mentioned here. While this isn't a deal breaker, I would suggest that U.S. or United States be used consistently throughout the article when denoting a certain geographic region.
 * Would it be more appropriate to state that the coin would weigh three-tenths as much versus three-tenth?
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preparation
 * The image of the Pattern coin struck to Peale's design for the three-cent piece in silver is released into the public domain and is hereby acceptable for use in this article.
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Design
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Production
 * The image of the Spanish colonial two-reales piece is released into the public domain and is free to use here.
 * In the second paragraph of the Type 1 (1851–1853) subsection, I suggest using consumer to shopper. But this is merely a suggestion.
 * I think it should stand. Carothers says "customer", if you are interested. I'm not wedded to shopper, I just think it's more to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the name is Philadelphia newspaper is unknown, it can be referred to as One Philadelphia newspaper...
 * It's not mentioned in Carothers. He footnotes to Hunt's Merchants Magazine, Sumner's History of American Currency and to some government reports, none of which I own.  I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Collecting
 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Mintages and rarity
 * The table is beautifully formatted and the circulation strikes have an inline citation for the contents below. An inline citation is also needed for the proofs column header.
 * It's the same source. I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
 * Thank you indeed for the review. Assuming it meets standards, it is on the fast track for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, this article more than meets Featured Article status in its current form. I doubt it will face much opposition or requests for edits or corrections. I thank you for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia and look forward to your next article. Congratulations on another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed for your kind words and your help in improving it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)