Talk:United States Sesquicentennial coinage/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt. I'll review this over the next several days. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Very nice article. As usual, there's little to quibble with.

Lede

"The United States Sesquicentennial coin issue were..." reads like British English. Maybe "The United States Sesquicentennial coin issue consisted of..."?
"specially-designed" I think when the adverb ends in "-ly", phrasal adjectives don't need a hyphen.
"The quarter eagle was to a design by Sinnock." That might be a normal phrase in numismatics, but it sounds odd to me.

Design

"jugate" could use a wiktionary link or some other explanation.
"At the insistence of the Sesquicentennial Commission, the coins were minted in very shallow relief, and thus struck up poorly." Is there any evidence of why they insisted on this?

The source has only the bare facts. I've taken care of the others. Thanks for the review!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Works for me. Passed! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.