Talk:United States Bicentennial coinage/GA1

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

Reviewer: My76Strat (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Over the coming days I will review this nomination against Wikipedia's good article criteria. All interested participants are invited to provide their constructive input. While any editor is welcome to indent and append under any specific bullet where they have reason, please only initiate comments in the section appropriate to your level of involvement.

Comments initiated by reviewer

 * By my initial read, I find the article meticulously well written. My first impression is that the start class assessment of this article is a misnomer and should have been corrected prior to "GA" nomination. By all appropriate means, article contributors should ensure by collaborative consensus that the article they are nominating has solidly achieved B class criteria. Normally, I would not attempt to take an article from start class to GA via a review. But I believe this article is a solid B class, and I will continue. It wouldn't bother me at all if someone was to update the current assessment to reflect your own pride in what you have already achieved. My76Strat (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the most part, the interlinks within the article are appropriate. I have observed no over linking, but there are some considerations which tend to reflect as under linking. For example by choosing to interlink commemorative coins in the lead, implies that its first occurrence within each sub-section should be linked as well. If it is important enough to link in one section, it is just as important in another. As an aside, when commemorative coin is first introduced in the lead, only coin is interlinked. It is the second occurrence in the lead which links the whole term. I think that order should be changed as well. My76Strat (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, a tool I use suggests linking the following terms as well: half cent, two-cent piece, gold piece, Independence Hall, Liberty Bell, mint mark, and silver coins. My76Strat (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This article establishes and primarily shows positive use of the serial comma. This sentence "On June 13, a bill, S. 1141 which provided for a circulating Bicentennial quarter, half dollar and dollar...", omits its use. Compare it to this sentence. "The resulting bill had no gold provisions, but authorized changes to the reverses of the quarter, half dollar, and dollar for the Bicentennial." MOS:SERIAL provides more guidance to this regard. My76Strat (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll insert the comma.
 * The one example shown was not the only instance, please cope edit all occurrences, one way or the other, The preference is yours but the guidelines compel consistency. My76Strat (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I find the lead adequately summarizes the content of the article and furthermore find all elements of the lead are expounded within the body except perhaps in this one example. I find this summary within the lead, "Congress also mandated 45,000,000 part-silver pieces be struck for collectors, far beyond the demand." I do not find this restated within the body, in particular what was the actual demand to substantiate it was far below anticipation? My76Strat (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously the fact that they took ten years to sell out when the Mint has originally put a strict deadline on it speaks for itself! I'm open to ideas again.  They were struck in anticipation of sale.  Do you have an idea for a rephrase?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is as obvious as Paris is to France. I think there are other possibilities, and unless it can be sourced that there was a demand expectation and then that they were far below that mark in their own analysis of that expectation. To me it is just as reasonable that they could have deliberately over produced to compensate for collector hoarding, and their anticipation of demand was also accurate. My76Strat (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, I would drop the "far beyond the demand" from the lead unless the prose can specifically show that production was related to a incorrect analysis. My76Strat (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about "far beyond what proved to be collector demand?" That way Congress's motivation (and there have been times in US history where they had a lot of coins struck to prime the silver industry, for example) is out of it, just what collectors were willing to buy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To my expectation, when you state anything related to the demand in conjunction with production in the lead, there is an obligation to expound the details in the body prose. If you merely state in the lead that N was produced, you can expand that in the body to show that demand was significantly less. But if you state the demand in the lead your are obligated to show how demand actually relates. Some will assume it as an innocent over estimation while others a bureaucratic maneuver born on the 9th hole of some prestigious golf course (and everything in between). Rather than open that can, I would simply state the number produced in the lead, and then expand that to its relation to actual demand. To forgo the rest that inclusion in the lead entails. My76Strat (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it extremely interesting that only three sets of the commemorative coins were ever delivered with the rest being melted. Presenting this fact begs one to wonder, "What happened to these three sets?", "Where are they today?". If it is possible to add prose which answer these questions, I think it would be appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not able to find that out, and I did check with the Ford Museum. It's possible they are with the Ford family.  They are mentioned in Breen's authoritative catalog of US coins, but he died over twenty years ago now.  At the time, the Mint was very paranoid about coin collectors and feared being pestered for examples.  Official gifts are always funny things, and this was in the post-Watergate era when the rules were changing.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am intrigued that images show a type 1, and 2 for the Dollar coin, but disheartened to not find this distinction enunciated in the prose. If ambiguity can be reduced, I think it only strengthens the article. My76Strat (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disregard, Obviously I missed it the first round, because it is plainly covered. My76Strat (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also curious as to why the reverse of each coin is shown to the near exclusion of each obverse. My76Strat (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article prose clarifies this as well. And rather well. My76Strat (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For your consideration, it seems to me that the article begins by describing the dual date notation and progresses to describe that most design changes relate to the reverse. Because of this flow, I think the first image should be the one showing the obverse with dual date and the reverse images, subsequent. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection. The Eisenhower OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a errant space between the page numbers for this reference "Coin World Almanac, pp. 421 –422". My76Strat (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider this sentence, "The deadline was originally December 14, 1973, but was extended to January 9, 1974 because of the energy crisis and Christmas mail delays". The conjunction combines the energy crisis and Christmas mail delays, but I am not sure if they are related. I think "energy crisis and normal Christmas mailing delays" or "energy crisis and related Christmas mailing delays" would remove this ambiguity (to whichever extent is proper). My76Strat (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to say. I was ten years old at the time, and I vaguely remember postal delays.  The source is from the 1970s and does not distinguish, presumably thinking readers (adults and teens, I'd say) would know, having lived through it.  I will do further research on google news archive.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fine to research this finer point and make a future clarification, when and if such a distinction is ever shown. Otherwise, it will not be a factor to delay assessment to "GA". My76Strat (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at google news this morning. I did not see anything specific on point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article talks about coins struck at West Point but the chart showing circulated coins only shows Philadelphia and Denver. Why is that? My76Strat (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly cents were struck at West Point, and without mintmark. I do not show any record of any Bicentennial coins being struck there.  Pennies were so rare in 1974 you could get sixty cents a roll.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Should there be a hat note atop this article stating this article is for the coins with a link to bicentennial notes, namely the 2 dollar bill? My76Strat (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, was the legislation which authorized the coins the same legislation which also reauthorized the 2 dollar bill?
 * No. Paper money collection is not my interest, but I believe the Treasury did not need authorization.  It had the authority already, from the last issue in 1963--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why should this: "Final mintages of coins were:" be a fragment of a sentence instead of complete? My76Strat (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open to ideas there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "The total coinage by striking mint are shown below:" My76Strat (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certain by your stature as a contributor that you considered an infobox for this article, can you tell me why you decided against including one? My76Strat (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not say anything about my stature, I work on the same terms as everyone else. There are no handy infoboxes for three coins, and I do not have the technical expertise to make one.  I have images of the obverses handy and can easily upload them if I had an infobox that would display all six sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant nothing negative. I apologize for everything in my above statement which was not well received. The technical bridge is easy enough to overcome so long as you and/or other contributors are not averse to the concept. It does seem to me this article incorporates enough statistical information, biographically notable names, and other facts to support the inclusion of an infobox, so long as it doesn't detract in some other way. My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended, don't worry. My major concern is that the infobox would be huge.  Six faces, and technical information both for the silver clad and copper nickel clad?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this will not delay my assessment. It is fine for future consideration. I actually like the way the prose flow in relation to the images shown by the current manifestation. It may well be best for the article to not use an infobox. My76Strat (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, an infobox is not an end in itself. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article and talk page history and find no concerns regarding stability of this article. I have also checked that images used in this article are properly licensed, and that the prose in use are original and free of encumbrance. My76Strat (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that your preference is to use double spacing after a period, a style I used to prefer. How do you avoid incorporating this preference to your encyclopedia edits? A curiosity - My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is still left over from my days on a typewriter, and would be distracting and difficult to end after a third of a century. Bots routinely clear that sort of thing up at FAC, I've never had a complaint.  A little careless of me, but I think it is forgivable.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments initiated by article contributors

 * Thank you, and thank you for the praise, but I will just await the outcome of this discussion before taking it on myself. If it does not pass, I will switch it to B unless there is a good reason not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. My76Strat (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My personal rule of thumb on linking is that if there has passed enough article room for the reader to forget the term, then give him a link and perhaps a helping hand in a reminder of what this was. I do not necessarily see that linking in the lede means it should be linked in all sections.  I generally will relink a term linked in the lede in the body at the first use, but that's not a universal thing, it's sort of judgement on how much the reader needs it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is entirely fair and good articles can be written this way. You should also consider the possibility that some reader may have been directed to the article via a soft redirect directly to an anchored section. Perhaps this is the extent of what they will read. Through my mentors, I have adopted it as best practice to look at each section as if it were a stub article in itself, and link the relevant terms as appropriate. In suggesting it, you are entirely free to disregard. My76Strat (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Independence Hall is a diambiguation page, the article properly links Independence Hall (United States). I'm linking to the half cent and two-cent even though such a piece would have little to do with those historic denominations, it may be of some use.  I think silver coin is not necessary.  Others I'll implement shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your rational is sound and that some of the links could easily be omitted. I just delivered the entire list because it was relatively short at its outset. My76Strat (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary findings
I have found that every suggestion levied during this review has been amicably addressed and further find that this article appears to meet the criteria for assessment as a "GA" class. I will leave this review open for a short period to allow others to comment and/or point out where I may have missed an issue. Absent manifestation of mitigation, I intend to soon close this review as successful. My76Strat (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What I have found
United States Bicentennial coinage is a good article because&mdash;  It is to wit:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

It is. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

The article is and has shown that:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

It is . The article is and it does: , and the specific examples within the article have shown:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

Well done! - My76Strat (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Few reviewers are so thorough at GAN.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and primarily I thank you. My76Strat (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)