Talk:Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar

GA Review

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Wehwalt, I've completed my review of your article and find that it meets the bulk of criteria for Good Article status. Before its passage to Good Article status, I just have a few comments, questions, and suggestions, which I have listed below. Once these have been addressed, I will feel confident in passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I assess that the lede adequately strands alone as a concise overview. This article's lede properly establishes context, explains why the half dollar is notable, and summarizes the most important points; as well as pulls content from each of the articles sections and subsections.
• I suggest wiki-linking Cincinnati, as it isn't as recognizable as New York of London.
• The reverse and obverse images of the coin are free for use here as they have both been released into the public domain.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited below, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Inception

• I know it may seem like overkill, but to provide the reader with further context, I suggest wiki-linking "commemorative coin." I know I searched for it to understand the background and purpose of commemorative coins. The background you have provided is immensely helpful, yet succinct.
• As stated before, I'd wiki-link the first mention of Cincinnati in the prose, in addition to its first mention in the lede.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preparation and controversy

• The image of Theodore Thomas is free for use here as it has been released into the public domain.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Design

• The image of the Sesquicentennial half dollar is free to use here as it has been released into the public domain.
• I suggest noting Vemeule's Numismatic Art in America by name here.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Release, distribution, and collecting

• The letter from Melish is free for use here as it has been released into the public domain.
• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated and placed at the end of a sentence. I would place two internal citations for the sentence regarding the peak of the 1936 commemorative coin boom: the first for Bowers and the second for the Melish letter. The same goes for the sentence regarding the values of coin sets sold by coin dealers.
• In the fourth paragraph, I suggest giving Flynn and Swiatek/Breen each a sentence regarding their assessments of Melish and this coin.
• The final sentence of this section is a perfect note in which to end this article--great job!
• Final note: the contents of the info box should sourced and written inside the article's prose. Especially regarding its value, mass, diameter, composition, etc.

Caponer I've done those things. Note I've sourced the whole infobox by sourcing the name. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you tremendously for all your diligent work on this article. I've re-reviewed the article and I assess that you have faithfully addressed all my comments and concerns, and so it is my privilege to pass this article to Good Article status! Thanks again and congratulations. -- Caponer (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (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.

50th anniversary

What exactly happened in 1886 that made Cincinnati "a center of music?" Brutannica (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing. That is why this coin is something of a scandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)