Talk:Jefferson nickel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A (prose):
"reverse is again the original by Felix Schlag;" - why "again"?

Please reword: "25-year term during which it could only be replaced by Congress," but you are addressing what happened after the 25 years were up. Sentences need to hang together.

"Mint looked into reducing its use of it."->"Mint looked into reducing its nickel use."

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
How many were circulated?

That's a bit of a moving target, since billions are struck every year. I'll see if I can find a total to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its authors, but a few points need further work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done (though I went a slightly different route on one of them) except the number. What are you looking for? The total number? The number per year?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the total number would be more impressive, but I defer to your judgment. Racepacket (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps recent figures would be more helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a different point, why did you use the <sub> tags to quote the two phrases on the coin? It strikes me as a bit distracting. Would another tag be more consistent with the MOS? Perhaps you could take another look at it? Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I've used before for coin legends, do you have another suggestion?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about <pre> or otherwise using a different font? Racepacket (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "appearing above Monticello." mean "appearing above the image of Monticello." or "appearing above the word Monticello."? Racepacket (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not address the long-term impact of the 2003 law. I read it that Monticello must stay on the nickel until Congress acts again, even after another 25 years. Racepacket (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! I've included that now. I just took the mottos out, How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very interesting article. Thank you for your hard work. Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]