Wikipedia:Peer review/Franklin Peale/archive1

Franklin Peale
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it at FAC and would like feedback. I've put it in this category because of the discussions of machinery in the article.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
This is the first half of my review:
 * Lead


 * "He returned with plans for improvement, designing the first steam-powered coinage press in the United States, installed in 1836" – this wording implies that he "returned designing". In fact he returned with plans for improvements; the specific designs followed. Thus "designing" → "and designed"
 * Early life and career


 * "The family lived there as well, and the boy was born in the family quarters in the museum." The first seven words are unnecessary.
 * I would re-site "in Febraury 1796" between "and" and "brought", i.e. "and in February 1796 brought..."
 * The "young" description is unnecessary (you say he's eight in the same sentence)
 * Brandywine River can be linked
 * "But, within a year, one of the Hodgson brothers, who ran a nearby machine shop, described Peale as more capable with tools than they were". It's not clear who the "they" are. Also, I don't think the leading "But..." is required.
 * "He then moved to nearby Philadelphia, working ..." Same comment as for the lead: he didn't "move ... working"
 * "When Charles Willson Peale died in 1827, Franklin became the manager of the museum." I would imagine that he also inherited some stock?
 * The section's final paragraph is a little overburdened with trivia - it isn't essential to give that much detail about his teaching at the institute.
 * Hiring and Europe tour


 * The structure of the second paragraphs falls down a bit. Basically, we don't need the sentence beginning "According to James L. Whitehead...", which is out of sequence and is covered by the later "According to Paterson..." sentence.
 * "all else" seems a little archaic. I'd say "everything he could"
 * Done to this point. No comments, just implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "and in 1835 introduced it to the Philadelphia Mint..." – chronologically, this information belongs in the next section, not in the middle of the account of his European journey
 * I have slightly rephrased this sentence: "Peale returned to France where, because all the Paris refiners wanted money to teach him parting, he learned the French method by observing the assayer at the branch mint in Rouen" – but I'm still not altogether happy with it. An alternative might be: "...wanted payment for teaching him the French method of parting, he learned it by observing..." etc
 * Return and results


 * "He warned that...": the word "that" is misplaced, given the wording that follows ("...in the organization of Mints in both France and England that..."
 * The cryptic parenthetical note isn't very clear: "(at the American mint done by the Engraver, later Chief Engraver)". I take this to mean that in the American mint, the Engraver was responsible for coin designs. The last part, "later Chief Engraver", seems an unnecessary additional detail.
 * Perhaps describe Patterson as "Mint director" rather than "director"
 * "So as to be able to take advantage" is convoluted. "To take advantage..." would be a lot simpler
 * "The first press then began..." In what way "first"?
 * We have "According to numismatist X..." twice in close proximity
 * "Robert Patterson III, son of the Mint Director under whom Peale would long serve, wrote that..." Inappropriate subjunctive; perhaps  "under whom Peale served for many years".

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) – and here it is:


 * Melter and Refiner


 * "The nomination was referred to the Committee on Finance, which reported back favorably" – probably unnecessary detail.
 * The information on the debased two-cent pieces, given immediately after Peale's confirmation, seems oddly placed, given that the next paragraph begins: "On taking office..."
 * "Peale arrived, with his daughter Anna, in the early fall of 1837" Necessary detail?
 * I think it's worth including. Peale's family life gets too little attention.  He apparently raised his daughter without much help from the mother, though he certainly had enough family to help out.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "...but to advise generally in seeing to it that the new mint was ready to begin production." A bit verbose; maybe just "to help ensure that the new mint..." etc
 * "Having been delayed in leaving Charlotte, Peale did not arrive in Dahlonega until November 20, 1837" Again I'm not convinced that this level of detail is required, nor that it is necessary to give his arrival date, his departure date and the information that he was there a week.
 * "This was credited to the account of the Melter and Refiner..." Does this mean it became his personal property?
 * Mint officers entrusted with gold were expected to turn a like amount over to the officer who superintended the next part of the coining process, minus an allowance for loss. If they exceeded that allowance, it came out of their pockets, and they also posted a bond.  I've tweaked the language but am open to suggestions here.   Remember, the mint was essentially a factory for turning metal into coins, and the gold and silver the public deposited could come in many forms, from nuggets to foreign gold coins to tableware.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chief Coiner and medallist


 * Why is "medallist" uncapitalised (unlike Melter, Refiner, Chief Coiner?)
 * Melter and Refiner is a single title. Maybe I should just delete the medallist, which is to describe what he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We seem to have two accounts of Peale's appointment by VB in the first paragraph
 * No, he was given a recess appointment, good until the end of the current Congress (March 3, 1841). So that Peale could remain in office longer than that, he had to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate.  This was back in the good old days, when the Senate went home from March to December.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Peale's enterprise was very profitable, as Peale took the gold and silver for these medals from stores at the mint, and replaced the bullion later." So he "borrowed" the gold and silver, but it's not immediately clear from this why the enterprise was "very profitable", since he replaced what he'd borrowed.
 * Saved him the opportunity cost of tying up capital. But I'll play with it.  It was profitable because he had no labor costs, no money tied up in equipment, etc.  Basically, unless he he advertised (and I've found no evidence that he did), his only cost was the cost of the gold.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Peale also engraved those medals for John Tyler and James Polk..." It is not clear what "those medals" refers to. It would also be helpful to mention that Tyler and Polk were former US presidents.
 * Downfall


 * Did the noisy sofa have a useful function, or was it just a glorified whoopee cushion?
 * That's as far as the source goes, alas. I assume people could sit on it normally.


 * Second paragraph, "These activities..." – not clear which activities
 * "...to allow the Mint to decline to give credit for small amounts of silver in gold deposits." I'm not sure I understand this, but in any case, what is the practical effect of this provision?
 * It goes back to parting, and that gold ore comes with silver. The Mint was basically keeping the silver and only paying for the gold.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Taxay is first mentioned in the previous section, and should have his description there.
 * Slightly muddled chronology? Between fourth & fifth para we switch back from 1852 to 1851
 * I know. It seemed logical, but I'm open to suggestions.  It makes more sense to mention Eckfeldt's death there.  I'll throw in a "had" before the verb.


 * "Taxay recorded that the new policy "seem[s] to have been ill-received in certain quarters of the Mint" but that as not all records are extant, the specifics are uncertain." The "but that" in mid-sentence creates uncertainty. Is what follows, i.e. "but that as not all records are extant..." etc,  part of Taxay's observation? If so, this could be clarified by inserting "observed" after the "but"
 * That's a paraphrase of what he said. "What exactly occurred we must leave to the reader's imagination, for the pertinent correspondence is now missing." That fits between the two quotes from Taxay that I give.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an unclosed square bracket in the Taxay quote
 * Strangely, since this is the climax of his downfall, you don't seem to record when Peale was fired or by whom; the final paragraph begins "The reason for Peale's firing...", but we need a brief mention of the event itself.
 * It's in the quotation. He was fired by Pierce.  That's the only account of the dismissal I've been able to find.  The older sources tend to avoid the issue.  He was certainly dismissed, as I checked the Senate journal for the nomination of his successor, and the nomination says "in place of Franklin Peale, removed".
 * Later years and other activities


 * "Civic organizations he was president of included..." This is not technically wrong, but it is inelegant. In this case the preposition could be moved forward – "of which he was president" – or you could rephrase along the lines of "He was president of several civic organisations, including..." Either of these would, I think, read more smoothly than what's there at present.
 * "He was elected a manager of the latter organization in 1839..." Should be "had been", not "was"
 * "Peale was among those surveyed in 1870 by Treasury Secretary George Boutwell..." I think the meaning is that his opinion was sought; as phrased, it makes him sound like a building rather than a person.
 * You mention that his daughter survived him, but not what happened to either of his wives. (Later: I see that Caroline is referred to as his "widow", but there's no hint of what happened to Eliza.
 * I don't know what happened to her. I can probably come up with a death date for Caroline Peale. She had family money.  He married well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm adding to the infobox that Caroline died in 1875. According to this, Eliza was still alive in 1832.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I notice that footnote (c) is referenced in a different manner from the rest, and I'm not sure that the refs cover the entire note.

Most interesting: I can't really decide whether Peale was a bad man who did a lot of good, or a good man who did a little bad. A bit like Nixon, really. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was the latter. It was probably considered one of the perks of the job to use the equipment when not in use.  However, even by the standards of the day, he went too far in having public employees work on his house or adjust targets at the archery club.  Thank you for the review, I'll run through these over the next day or so.  I've been suffering from a sinus infection which has made it difficult for me to concentrate.  Just about gone now, I'm happy to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have finished my responses. Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a link in the article to Si Monumentum Requires, Circumspice. This goes to an article on an album by a black metal band. Is this intentional?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Peale liked music, but I don't think he was into black metal. Now if it was post-hardcore, I might leave it in. Thanks.  Delinked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)