Wikipedia:Peer review/Coinage Act of 1873/archive1

Coinage Act of 1873

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd appreciate feedback before taking it to FAC. The Coinage Act of 1873 really isn't about the coins, it's about a piece of legislation that sparked the largest political controversy in the US in the last years of the 19th century.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

First instalment – I'm about two-thirds through:

Background

"The Mint, in its first decades, only coined gold and silver in response to deposits of that metal by citizens..." - As two metals have been mentioned I'd say "those metals" rather than "that metal". Also, I think "only" is redundant.
"At that time, gold or silver U.S. coins were rarely seen in the nation, as they were heavily exported—most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". There seems a contradiction here: gold or silver U.S. coins were "heavily exported", yet "most pieces in circulation were foreign in origin". Can you explain what these pieces in circulation were?
Sorry, but "half-dime"? What's that in cents?
"replaced with a shortage" → "replaced by a shortage"
"Since it had been two decades since much silver was regularly deposited..." Is there a "so" missing from before "much"?

Not really. There may be a "very" implied there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inception

I would specify the "British gold sovereign" in the text, rather than requiring the link. Likewise "25 French francs", although for some reason you haven't wikilinked "franc".
You could economise on wording re. Knox, whose dispatch to San Francisco is mentioned twice in successive sentences at the beginning of para 2.
The sentence beginning "The proposed major changes to existing law..." is too long and overcomplicated. It also apperas to mix proposals with actual changes ("the office of treasurer at the mints and assay offices was abolished..." etc).

Consideration and passage

"Knox's bill had abolished the charge of .5 percent" → " Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent" (?)
"recommitted to committee" – is there a more elegant way of phrasing this? (We also have "committed to Sherman's committee" later on)
"The bill at that time provided that the cent be made of nickel alloy as well" – does this mean "The bill at that time provided that the cent be partially made of nickel alloy"?
I don't see how Townsend's motion to kill the bill can be said to have "succeeded twice", when it actually failed to pass on a roll call.
Sentence needing attention: "The House initially refused to agree to the Trade dollar, and representatives of both houses, led by Sherman and Potter, met in a conference committee, and the House acceded to the Senate amendment for the Trade dollar". There is one "and" too many.

Intent of the bill's authors

The first sentence reads very awkwardly, partly I think because of punctuation placements and partly because of the initial "Once". I suggest a slight revision: "When, several years after its passage, the 1873 act became a political issue, ..." etc
Adding "they argued" to a fairly long clause makes for confusion in reading. Why not "They argued that..."?
The "though" after "Boutwell" is a kind of honorary "however". I'm not convinced it's needed.
The sentence beginning "Within a few years..." is too long, too complicated, needs a split.
I have slightly altered the format of this section, to rescue the otherwise awkwardly place Nugent quote which, as it stood, did not stand out sufficiently from the main text (particularly as it begins mid-sentence).
The (again overlong) sentence beginning "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar..." is not syntactically correct. Suggest: "Knox and Linderman were both personally familiar with mining conditions in the Far West. They knew that the amount of bullion produced..." etc

Will return to complete shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rest: slim pickings:

Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers

" each required to be bonded" - explain?
"and required them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate..." etc: this information is stated in the previous paragraph and doesn't need repeating.

Testing and the Assay Commission

"The Coinage Act of 1873 kept the judge as a member, but made the two other federal officials who were members the Comptroller of the Currency and the assayer of the New York Assay Office." I had to read this more than once, and I'm still not certain of its syntax. If you deleted "who were members" it would flow better and remove an unnecessary repetition.
"The president, under the 1837 act, was allowed to appoint members of the public each year..." For clarity, I suggest: "Under the 1837 act, the president was allowed to appoint members of the public to the commission each year..."

Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions

" Each office would be governed similarly to the mints, with a superintendent in charge, and an Assayer, and Melter and Refiner as the two officers under him." Compare with: " In addition to the superintendent, each mint had an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner" a couple of sections earlier. It seems an unnecessary inclusion in this section anyway.
"setting a April 1, 1873 effective date" – "a" April? Maybe "setting April 1, 1873 as the effective date".

Later reaction

The opening sentence (like Macbeth) has three "whiches". Apart from that, better as two sentences, I think.
"recovered some" is, I recognise, standard informal American prose, but is it encyclopedic?

"Crime of '73"

"resumption of specie payments" – explain?
"Even though Kelley denied this had taken place, the story stuck,..." Well, Kelley would deny it, wouldn't he, even if the story was true. The "even though" rather implies that a congressman's denial of something was a standard for truth. I'd reword slightly: "Kelley denied this had taken place, but the story stuck,..."

That's all. An interesting legal imbroglio. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've either done what you suggested or done something similar.

Coemgenus's comments

Lede

"...causing large quantities of silver dollars to be struck and the gold standard endangered." Earlier, you said that bimetalism was the standard. Maybe "driving the more-valuable gold dollars out of circulation" or something like that (if what I wrote is even accurate).

Background

"So long as silver prices remained high, this placed the United States on the gold standard." The word "effectively" might help here, since we were legally still on a bimetal standard.
"Greenbacks, backed not by silver or gold..." Maybe "Greenbacks, a paper currency backed not by silver or gold..." just so people are clear on what they were.

Inception

I'd rearrange the first two sentences to get the cause and effect in order. Something like "Losses of nearly $250,000 at the San Francisco Mint had concerned the Treasury, and McCullough sent John Jay Knox, a Treasury employee, on a special mission to investigate in 1866."

Consideration and passage

"Knox's bill proposed to abolish the charge of .5 percent." You said this in the previous section.
"The bill was reintroduced into the House by Kelley when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and was debated there in January 1872." I'd say "Kelley reintroduced the bill in the House when Congress reconvened in December 1871, and it was debated there in January 1872."

Coins and deposit of bullion (§13–39)

"abraded" Maybe a link to Abrasion (mechanical)? I had to guess the meaning, myself, from context.

Later reaction

It's linked in the lede, but I'd link "free silver" the first time it's used here, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]