Talk:Franklin Peale/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 03:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article, stay tuned for further comments. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

A couple comments on things to fix:

The self portrait and the portrait of Peale's wife are arranged in such a way that there is sandwiched text when viewed on my browser. Recommend you move the self-portrait into the next section.

I'd rather not as I'd rather keep it with the subject matter. I've adjusted the placement, though.

The File:Peale 3c piece 1850 obverse.jpg image also runs across two headings, forcing the level three heading to the right; looks bad in my browser, I have heard that this can cause a lot of problems in some others. At any rate, I'd suggest making it right-justified and moving it so it doesn't spill over into the "Downfall" section.

I moved it right and put in a clear tag.

May want to see if the redlinks can be linked to an article of if de-linking is appropriate if no article exists. If an article (perhaps Mint Act of 1837) is proposed or pending (or just really ought to be created), I have no problem leaving them in, just want you to review and verify that there are no appropriate articles to link them to. For jargon terms such as "toggle joint," if you can't find a link, you may want to offer a VERY brief explanation of what that is or clarify context a wee bit.

Re the people redlinks: Sellers seems to be notable, and I think it is likely enough to be written sometime that it's worth it. I was selective, I did not link people like Joseph Cloud, Peale's predecessor as Melter and Refiner, although I think all Mint officers are notable, at least the Philadelphia Mint ones. I do intend to write a stub on the 1837 Act, it is somewhat surprising there is none as there is on most of the major Mint Acts and some of the minor. It's on my to do list, along with numismatic-related people like Mary Margaret O'Reilly and Charles Moore (Commission of Fine Arts) I will likely write a stub sometime. Let me look for a suitable pipe on toggle joint. I will confess I do not understand steam engines.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks is good, dablinks is good. No dead or dab links.
No plagiarism or copyvio
Most works cited are hardcopy, appear to all be appropriate
Overall, looking real good so far, but I have yet to do a detailed content review

More to come. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyway, I think we are up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I tweaked the placement of the pattern coin some more - the fix there had left a large white space gap on my brower (if we now have sandwiched text there, feel free to tweak. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per prose review, instead of giving you 10,000 little nitpicks, I just went through and did the nitpicks I saw, and inserted hidden text at places where I think you may want to look at rephrasing for clarity... you are free to agree, disagree or revert and toss all hidden text once addressed - or ignored. I'm pretty much ready to approve. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, swell, I'll look them over. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all tweaks I see, so when you've peeked at all, ping me here. So far your edit summaries make sense and I am good with your changes. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. I'll do all the "paperwork" in a minute. Fun review, interesting character! Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]