Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberty Head nickel/archive1

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 Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [1].

Liberty Head nickel edit

Featured article candidates/Liberty Head nickel/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the standards. The Liberty Head nickel had a thirty year life, but is best remembered for the mysterious 1913 nickel, of which five are known. It's an interesting story, both for the inception of the nickel, how it came to be replaced, and the strange 1913 piece. It's a good article and, I think, well researched. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2c looks good. Looking at other US coin articles, Liberty used to be free and disheveled with a blood red cap and wild eyes. So sad she's become a plump matron watching the Pinkertons bash strikers... anyway. Richardson, William Allen, ed (1891): is Volume 1 part of the title? Do you feel any need to cite the section contained in this work (the statute?). Yeoman, R.S. (2010): extraneous fullstop after ISBN. Peters, Gloria; Mohon, Cynthia (1995): is the Ampersand part of the title? Possibly check title page? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Charles Barber is not well regarded as a designer of coins. I have taken care of those things. Yes, the ampersand is part.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! All the other citations / bibliographic entries look good to me on 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the state abbreviations be spelled out in principle YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the "location" field in the citation template in the bibliography? Is there a MOS way of doing it? All I know is that however I seem to do it, someone objects. I used to use postal abbreviations, it was objected to. This is one of those areas in which I am entirely content to do whatever the reviewer wants, as long as I am not at risk of being tugged between two reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
What makes http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/olsen-hawn-1913-liberty-nickel-sells-for-3737500/ a reliable, high quality source? Note that I lean that it is, but would like just a hair more to push me over to complete satisfaction.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the about page, that indicates contributions by big names in numismatics, and representatives of well-regarded companies such as Stack's and Bowers and Mesena. There are staff writers as well, and editorial oversight. They are also members of the American Numismatic Association, the main umbrella group in the field. I would not say that an individual being an ANA member is much to write home about, but a publication is another matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a link to something showing what this particular author has written in the numismatics field? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the site is only used once, perhaps it is simpler if I just switch it to a news article, so I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria (which it passed), and support based on content, referencing, and language. I still think that the table should be made into a six column table, to shorten it, but this doesn't really factor into its quality against the FA criteria. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning to support~~: This went through the GA route rather than PR, so this has been my first reading (though I am becoming quite knowledgeable about American coinages). A few prose issues for consideration:-
- Non-American readers may be glad of a brief explanation of E Pluribus Unum, rather than being required to use the link
- In "Folger instead rejected...", the "instead" seems redundant
- "After heavy coinages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, there were much lower mintages of the coin..." I appreciate the need to avoid repetition, but this phrasing still reads rather awkwardly. I've played around with it: "After heavy mintages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, production was much lower in 1885 and 1886", possibly?
- In the same paragraph, "due to" occurs twice (and again in the first line of the third para of this section)
- "The first information that there might be a 1913 Liberty head nickel came in December 1919..." sounds a little vague; I was momentarily flummoxed. It would be clearer if the words "in existence" were added after "head nickel".
- Somewhat convoluted: "The coins remained together until dispersed in 1943, after spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector." To me a simpler sequence would be "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector, the coins were finally dispersed in 1943."
- "It is uncertain how the nickels came to be made." Suggest: "It is uncertain how the 1913 nickels came to be made."

Will be happy to support after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done, though I modified the language slightly in two cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns expressed above have all been addressed satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Origin: End of the second paragraph needs a period.~~
~~Space needed after reference 6.~~
~~1913: "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. Col. E.H.R. Green." Double "Col." here.~~
~~"The Mint's records shows no production of 1913 Liberty head nickels". "shows" → "show".~~
~~Second word of the Mintage Figures section heading shouldn't be capitalized.~~
~~The publisher in reference 37 (China Post) should be italicized.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Notwithstanding the very minor issues I found (which are now all fixed), I found this to be a fine piece of work, and an interesting read to boot. I'm satisfied that the FA criteria are met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are appropriately licensed or declared photographs of coins minted before 1923. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all reviewers. Three supports, no opposes, the nom's been up for a bit, and I think all checks are done. If there are remaining issues, I'd be grateful for comments about them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article, no concerns although the Josh Tatum link is a bit of an Easter Egg imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if I left it out, it would not be serving the reader well. Perhaps someone will improve the Tatum article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.