Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Assay Commission/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I may nominate it for FA in due course. I'm working on a couple of images, but have only promises so far. It is short, but really, there isn't a heck of a lot to say about it.
Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
The "0" for employees seem to make the Infobox an idiotic thing to have (it is dissolved, is it still going to have employees?)... Is it possible to not display that field?- It never had any employees is the point I was trying to make. Can you think of a better way to convey it? The acid test means I just failed to convey it to you.
- Ah... okay... I think it just confuses. I tried clearing the field and "Employees" is gone from the Infobox. I think it might be better to do just that. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- It never had any employees is the point I was trying to make. Can you think of a better way to convey it? The acid test means I just failed to convey it to you.
"... called the pix. [sic] This box ..."- Is the [sic] originally in the quote? Otherwise, the error is not obvious to me. Ah... only till later do I read that the item is supposed to be a pyx. Perhaps this proper spelling should be inserted alongside the [sic]?
- Agreed.
- Is the [sic] originally in the quote? Otherwise, the error is not obvious to me. Ah... only till later do I read that the item is supposed to be a pyx. Perhaps this proper spelling should be inserted alongside the [sic]?
"Only the government members served on ..."- The definite article seems unnecessary here.
- Agreed.
- The definite article seems unnecessary here.
"Carter signed legislation abolishing the Assay Commission, writing in a signing statement that ..."- There seems to be some odd (redundant?) phrasing here with the "signed/writing in a signing".
- Agreed.
- There seems to be some odd (redundant?) phrasing here with the "signed/writing in a signing".
"Although President Franklin Roosevelt had ended the paying-out of gold, ..."- What is this practice? If "paying-out" is what I think it is (paying the assayers in gold), why is it said they received no compensation? Why is it not discussed earlier in the article?
- This, which I wrote, may be of help to you. It is paying out of gold to the public, not the assay commissioners in particular.
- After reading that, I think "Although President Franklin Roosevelt had ended the paying-out of gold," might be redundant. "... almost all of which were melted due to the end of gold coinage for circulation. Assay commissioners were traditionally allowed to purchase coins from the pyx which were not ..." seems to me a smoother read. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- This, which I wrote, may be of help to you. It is paying out of gold to the public, not the assay commissioners in particular.
- What is this practice? If "paying-out" is what I think it is (paying the assayers in gold), why is it said they received no compensation? Why is it not discussed earlier in the article?
It seems to me that Functions and activities should come before Commissioners; the destruction and purchase of unassayed coins is better explained by this section.- Fair enough
Otherwise, this article looks good to me. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I will implement your suggestions later today once I catch up with one or two things and run a bunch of errands.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)