Talk:Mercury dime/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you, I have this watchlisted. Looking forward to a review against the criteria, and such additional comments as the reviewer may care to make.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. No invalid disamb. or external links[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"lettering was not distinct enough."->"lettering was not sufficiently distinct."
I'm not convinced on this one ... I think the existing language is direct and understandable, and your proposal is undoubtedly correct, but I"m not sure it is effective.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"though one specimen is known.[26]"->"though one specimen is known to still exist.[26]" or "though one specimen remains.[26]"???
Exists?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"executed the design featuring Roosevelt" - not clear to the reader who designed the Roosevelt dime.

"began to be coined at the start of 1946, ending the Mercury dime series.[9]" - just say Roosevelt dime was released on January 30, 1946.
Ah, I'm trying to make clear that no 1946 Mercury dimes were struck. Your phrasing would make people wonder if it was another partial year situation again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. You can cure the imprecision in at least three ways: give the date the last Mercury dime was struck, the date the Roosevelt dime was authorized to go into production, and/or the date of the Roosevelt dime's issue. Your current text is problematic because I suspect the Mercury dime production may have actually stopped sometime before December 31, 1945.
I'll do some research and see if I can find out anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Full cites to Vermeule, Breen, Taxay, and Burdette are missing.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
How about the change from Weinman's textured fields to smoothed out fields in 1917?

Dime article says, "Many coins in the "Mercury" series exhibit striking defects, most notably the fact that the line separating the two horizontal bands in the center of the fasces is often missing, in whole or in part; the 1945 issue of the Philadelphia Mint hardly ever appears with this line complete from left to right, and as a result, such coins are worth more than usual for uncirculated specimens. A valuable variety is an overdate, where 1942 was stamped over a 1941 die at the Philadelphia mint. A less obvious example from the same year is from the Denver mint.[14]"

Total production was 2,677,232,488 dimes, per Lange.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~wikilink Barber coinage or come up with a better understood phrase.~~

I did, on first usage. Should it be done again?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I usually just copy and paste the sources from one article to the next, with slight amendations as needed. I forgot here. I will work on this I hope tonight. I presently have three coin articles under review and all three reviewers have found faults so I need to do the other two first!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your time. We are all volunteers. Racepacket (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should do it. I have omitted the textured versus plain fields, I just don't think that's significant enough to put into a general knowledge ariticle.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And thank you for another fine review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (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.