Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barber coinage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:01, 22 October 2012 [1].

Barber coinage

edit

Barber coinage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Barber coinage, a dime, quarter and half, was struck for a quarter century beginning in 1892. Views as to its beauty, or lack thereof, were not unanimous, and are not today. Still, it marks a transition between the coins with classic motifs of the 19th century and the more modern 20th century issues.Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is my pleasure to make this my first post-hiatus support. I've gone over the article, making a few very minor fixes and rephrasings. I can also personallly vouch for the reliability of all the sources utilized therein. My only quibble would be the capitalization of "mint director". It is my belief that this should only be capitalized when part of a title (e.g., "Mint Director Leech"). That said, this is a fine article about a decidedly unpopular coin series, and I applaud Wehwalt for taking it on!-RHM22 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and welcome back. Perhaps "Mint director", after all, he did not direct just one mint, but a minimum of three.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're correct in considering "Mint" to be a proper noun in this case.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 31 and 34 appear to overlap
  • Likewise 52 and 53
  • All the Lange refs appear to be the 2006 book, none to the online article

Spotchecks carried out. No other sources issues that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave lengthy comments at the peer review, which were satisfactorily answered and in most cases adopted. This is at least the 20th of US coinage articles that I have reviewed and seen at FAC. It is an area for which, like medieval bishops, Wikipedia is becoming known as the best source. Keep up the good work! Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I don't consider 8-9 to be overlapping 8 alone, I try to give the reader the most specific cite I can and there is no point in having them off on page 9 when nothing comes from page 9. Actually fn 55 is from the website. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed 55 - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Happy enough with this one on a few read-throughs; prose and comprehensiveness seem suitable. Not sure about the placement of File:First Barber pattern.png, though; it squeezes the text between two images which generally doesn't look too great, and is the only image aligned to the left, with a plethora on the right, so it looks a little out of place too. However, I'm at a loss for a solution; I'd suggest a multiple image template with the other pattern coin, but vertical space seems to be at a premium. If it's not an issue for other reviews I'm happy enough to let it drop, though. Another interesting article in one of our strongest fields. GRAPPLE X 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play with it, but I looked at it too and didn't see a better way. Not all of the images can be re-arranged, some need to be where they are. Thanks for the review, appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images review

Most of the images are fine, with properly licensed photographs of public domain objects. I have questions on two of the images:

That's one of Bobby131313's coin images. He retired. He was careless about licenses, and I questioned it on a noticeboard some time ago, and the feeling was that given the sheer number of images he contributed, that uploading an image he took himself was indicative of an intent to have us use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the uploader is the person who took the picture, the licensing is okay on this. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to a US government image, based on the credit in the Lange book to the Denver Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the template on the original image as well. Images have now all been verified -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that. I'm not aware of any impediments to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add my thanks to User:BrandonBigheart for his glorious images.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Barber_coinage/archive1&oldid=519182797"