Talk:United States Sesquicentennial coinage/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. I'll review this over the next several days. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chart

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


 * 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:

Comments
Very nice article. As usual, there's little to quibble with.
 * Lede
 * "The United States Sesquicentennial coin issue were..." reads like British English. Maybe "The United States Sesquicentennial coin issue consisted of..."?
 * "specially-designed" I think when the adverb ends in "-ly", phrasal adjectives don't need a hyphen.
 * "The quarter eagle was to a design by Sinnock." That might be a normal phrase in numismatics, but it sounds odd to me.


 * Design
 * "jugate" could use a wiktionary link or some other explanation.
 * "At the insistence of the Sesquicentennial Commission, the coins were minted in very shallow relief, and thus struck up poorly." Is there any evidence of why they insisted on this?
 * The source has only the bare facts. I've taken care of the others. Thanks for the review!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Passed! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)