Wikipedia:Peer review/Peace Dollar/archive1

Peace Dollar
This was recently listed as a Good Article, and a few others (myself included) feel that it is close to FA status. But before going there, I'd like to get some other eyes to help out. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! Regarding the Collectability section, it's quite short (four sentences and a list). Perhaps this could be expanded a bit? Bear with me, as I'm a complete novice to coins and coin collecting but here are some ideas that might help:
 * Maybe a very short desciption of a proof coin can be included in the proof section, then if the reader is still interested they can then follow the proof wikilink. As it stands now, anyone not familiar with coins/coin collecting (like me) will have no idea what this section is about until they follow that link.
 * (with high relief)? Does this mean there was great demand for proof coins before they were minted? If so, maybe you could expand on this and perhaps provide a reference. If not, then maybe you should clarify what this comment is alluding to.
 * The special varieties section is just a list. Could this be converted into prose using the brief descriptions of each of the coins as a comparison to the 'normal' coins? You might also be able to include why there were changes to the coin.
 * The Rarities section is again a bit short, and perhaps a bit technical. I'd suggest converting comments in parenthesis into proper prose and expanding on some of the more technical details. Some idea of where MS-65 ranks .. is that the best possible condition? XF/EF is poor quality I assume? Going into detailed grading schemes is not necessary ofcourse, that is up to the grading article, but I think just a slightly better idea of what these grades mean would do the article some good. Cheers -- darkliight [&pi;alk] 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All fine suggestions. I and some of the other editors working on the page will definitely incorporate them!  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've addressed all of your points. If I missed anything let me know.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)