Talk:Liberty Head nickel/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

• Comment: One issue I see after a brief review is that the opening mentions the 1913 five coin issue twice. I suggest it only be raised once in the opening. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened the first mention. I think that there is a need to mention it in connection with the timeframe, and then mention the numismatic 1913 aspect. It would be tough to bring them together. BTW, I am aware we don't have an image of a "NO CENTS" nickel, I'm working on that and hope to have one by Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Images taken care of. Not the best condition on the coins, but as I paid for them, they will have to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

General Comments: These are comments that arise as I read through the article. Some of them have to do with language; I'm not comfortable enough with my own writing as to actually attempt any copyediting, so I rather leave it up to you to decide whether my comment is sensible or not. The following comments have little bearing on the GA review.

• "It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912" → "It was circulated between 1883 and 1912" Not that big of the deal, but perhaps the original version has some redundancy ("struck for circulation" versus "circulated").
• "...at least five pieces were surreptitiously struck dated 1913." → What do you mean by "surreptitiously struck"? Unauthorized? Admittedly, it might be because I don't know the word very well (I had to look it up), so it's difficult for me to put into the context of the sentence.
• I didn't find it clear that the second paragraph of the lead was referring to the Liberty Head nickel. As such, I think the following change would be positive: "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883." → "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883 as the Liberty Head nickle." (Or, something similar, at least.)
• "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913." → I think this would be clearer as follows, "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, with a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, which went into production in February 1913."
• "Well-known sculptor James Earle Fraser approached Treasury officials, who were impressed with his work." → Were they impressed with his work before he approached them, or after? This sentence seems to suggest the former, but I am just making sure.
• The table at the end is sort of awkward, largely because it hurts the article aesthetically. I think the table would look nicer if it was designed with six columns, instead of two (or nine, instead of three; or maybe seven, since only two years have marks).

Now, for the review;

1. Well-written: The language is clear and concise, and the article follows the manual of style.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Citations and references look good.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes.
4. Neutral: Yes (no random insertions of, "man, this nickle sucks!")
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated: Yes, and the image tags are all legitimate.

Therefore, I see no reason this should not pass as a good article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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.