Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington quarter/archive1

Washington quarter
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… It's going to FAC at some point, and I would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

- one final push. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to hurry, I'm on a boat and I'm doing little online editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: by agreement with nominator I won't post this review until around 15 November. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Now you are safely back on dry land, here are the first stages of my review:-
 * Lead


 * "The original coin began to be struck in 1932..." → "The original coin was first struck in 1932..."
 * "members of the committee established by Congress for the bicentennial" → "members of the bicentennial committee established by Congress..."
 * "...to replace the regular issue Walking Liberty half dollar for that year only" → "...to replace for that year only the regular issue Walking Liberty half dollar
 * "Instead Congress replaced the Standing Liberty quarter, permanently". Comma after "Instead", and the rest would read more naturally as "Congress decided to replace..."
 * I would suggest that Mellon "selected a design by John Flanagan" rather than "selected Flanagan's design"
 * "Since 1999, the reverse of the quarter has been used to commemorate the 50 states, the nation's other jurisdictions, and National Park Service sites" - I imagine that, for clarification, the words "at various times" (or similar) need to be inserted after "has been used".
 * The name "Washington" occurs three times in the final sentence.
 * Inception


 * The lead refers to plans for a commemorative medal and a coin. This section scarcely mentions the medal, until we read about the competition to design the medal and the coin. I know the article is about the coin, but a little more information on the medal would improve the context.
 * "gotten": I know this is accepted US demotic usage, but is it accepted formal usage, bearing in mind FAC criterion 1a? To my tender transatlantic ears, "received" reads better.
 * When in Rome, shoot Roman candles.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "The selection of artist was to be made after consultation with the Commission of Fine Arts and was subject to congressional approval and the final decision as to the design by the Secretary of the Treasury, at that time Andrew W. Mellon, a noted art collector and connoisseur." Two sentences here, really (full stop after "approval"). And the selection of the artist was to be made by whom?
 * The last sentence of this paragraph "The Depression had caused..." seems out of place at this point and could perhaps be fitted more appropriately elsewhere.
 * Can we avoid "designer ... designer ... designed" closely together in the last paragraph?
 * Competitions


 * Doesn't the first paragraph of this section more properly belong to "Inception" rather than "Competitions"?
 * "Moore replied, stating that as Fraser had won the competition, she should design the quarter as well." Add the words "for the half dollar" after "won the competition"
 * for the medal, actually. The half dollar never happened (well, there was a 250th in 1982, it happened then.


 * "the design agreement" - suggest "the earlier design agreement"
 * I don't think the notations "#56" or "#84" are necessary. The hash sign is not normally used in prose, and the numbers are meaningless outside the context of the overall list.
 * "The designs were then submitted to Secretary Mellon on November 2, 1931, who selected #84, designed by John Flanagan, and on the 4th Mellon sent Moore images of the selected designs". Again designs/designed/designs. Are the exact dates (2nd and 4th November) really necessary? If not, can we simplify to something like "In November the designs were submitted to Secretary Mellon, who selected those by John Flanagan and sent images of these on to Moore"?
 * "Mellon ... has been accused of discriminating against Fraser as a woman". The phrase "as a woman" is awkwardly tacked on to the end of the sentence. Would it be tidier to say "accused of gender discrimination against Fraser"?
 * I think it is a more effective sentence the first way, though I am open to possibilities. "as a woman" gets right to the heart of the matter.  Almost certainly a myth, though a long lasting one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am safely off the ship of fools, I am happy to say.  Thank you for waiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the rest


 * ''Flanagan's design


 * "he head" should be either "the head" or "his head"
 * That was the typo I saw on the cruise but did not get around to correcting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "General Assembly" - can you be more specific?
 * There is rather a tendency towards overuse of quotations in the article, and I wonder if it is necessary to make a direct quote of Bowers's mundane comment? Sometimes the quoted texts are not well expressed; for example I am sure that by "an ideal portrait" Cornelius Vermeule means "an idealized portrait".


 * Production


 * A small point, but presentationally, a displaced (on my display) section heading followed by two subsection headings, doesn't look good. Is there any way this could be tidied?
 * Silver strikings (1932–1964)


 * Perhaps begin the second paragraph "The coin..." or "The quarter..." We know it's the Washington quarter
 * "The scarcity of the Denver piece meant that few were hoarded in rolls by coin dealers..." Not sure I understand. I would have thought that scarcity would mean more, not less, hoarding.
 * "They are generally called after the appearance of "In God We Trust", to the left of Washington's head: the Light Motto, Medium Motto, and Heavy Motto." Difficult to fathom what that means at first, or even second, reading. I've worked it out, but it needs some attention. At the very least the comma after "In God We Trust" should be moved to after "generally called".
 * "about as worn on either side" - does this mean "equally worn on either side"?
 * "The fine-tuning of the design continued through the remainder of silver production with pieces dated 1964." Doesn't make sense to me as it stands. Should there be a comma after "silver production", and "up to" instead of "with"? Similar wording later in the paragraph gives me the same problem, though "the end of silver circulation production with pieces dated 1964" makes slighly more sense.
 * "it closed after that year, not striking mintmarked quarters again until 1968." So it reopened?
 * Yes, during the coin shortage it was all hands on deck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Clad composition (1965–1998)


 * I've not met the term "clad sandwich" before. Is it an official technical term? Should it be in quotes to indicate its unofficial nature?
 * This is always a tricky discussion. I will see what the official specifications say.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "(the new reverse design is known on some 1964-dated silver quarters" - should this be "shown"?
 * Perhaps "exists"? It is not common, although too specialized to be really expensive.  I don't think it gets a separate listing in most catalogs.  --Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the fourth paragraph I rather lose sight of the Washington quarter because the text seems to be essentially about something else. Do we need all this bicentenial detail, the only really relevant issue as far as the quarter is concerned being, it seems that none were struck bearing the 1975 date.
 * I will cut it bacl. After all, the Bicentennial coin article exists and may some day return to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Commemorative (1999–present)


 * "Although the act had given Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to carry out the report..." Word missing. (power after "Rubin"?)
 * "Under the act, the fifty states would be honored with fifty new quarters" - I take this to mean that each of the fifty states would be honored with a state-specific quarter.
 * Yes,.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "placement" is used twice in the same line, with different meanings (placement in the timeline/positioning on the coin)
 * "The designs were selected by then-Treasury Secretary" - do we nead the formulation "then-"? It stands to reason. You do need to say "the Treasury Secretary", though.
 * Some of the information in the latter paragraphs of this section seems to go beyond the scope of the Washington quarter, e.g. "The Mint also sold a large number of numismatic items..." etc
 * I will look at it, but am inclined to keep at least some. The State quarters were a definite effort to involve the public, and I think that should be recognized.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * General


 * References would look better in columns
 * Some formatting of external links advised

That's it. I couldn't find any deaths that we could pin on this coin, not even Saint-Goudens. Coolidge died in 1933, perhaps a delayed response to the issue, typical of the dynamic 30th president. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably explains why it has hung on so long, the other coins were jinxed. Obviously I did not devote as much time to polish as in other articles but it will shine by the time it gets to FAC (right  now second or third in line, but that will change as the McKinley project starts shooting out articles).  Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)