Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morgan dollar/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 Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

---

Morgan dollar

Morgan dollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Morgan dollar/archive1

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and covers the topic thoroughly and accurately. The Morgan dollar was just one in a long line of United States dollar coins that proved unpopular with the general public. Today the coin is probably most famous for its widespread use in Westerns, but the true story of its origin and production is probably just as interesting. The article is currently a GA and it has been peer reviewed by Niagara. Thanks also to Wehwalt for both helping me with this article and inspiring me to contribute to numismatic articles in general on Wikipedia. Thanks to all reviewers for your time in looking over my nomination, whatever the result.-RHM22 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I skim a lot of these currency articles when things are slow at work (at a bank!), so maybe I can offer some meaningful feedback. Here are the issues I noticed:

• I'm not sure about some of the tense use, for example, "The coin is named..." or "The Morgan dollar is a United States dollar coin..." It sounds to me like some of this should be past tense, but I'll be the first to admit that one of my own biggest problems is writing in a consistent tense.... so I may be wrong.

• Per nominator's reply below, if this is truly a problem, I'm sure a skilled copy editor will catch this before the article passes. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Morgan's design was based on work previously done by him on earlier pattern coins." Maybe: "Morgan's design was based on his previous work on earlier pattern coins."
• I'm not an expert at image rights, but I do know that the two images in the infobox need to have their rights adjusted per Commons:Currency#United_States

• I suspect the dual license tags on the images are excessive. Hopefully the image reviewer will have more meaningful input. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You definitely could be right about that. I'm not great with copyright stuff. The reason I kept the uploaders tag on there, though, was because coins are usually considered 3D objects, meaning that a scan or photograph of one results in a copyright for the person who took the scans. I definitely could be wrong about the dual tags, though.-RHM22 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image captions for the people are not very informative. It might help to include a very short blurb about their importance in the article. Since Bland and Alison are similar in their role, you might be able put them in a {{multiple image}} stacked horizontally, possibly saying, "In 1876, Richard P. Bland (left) introduced a bill in the House to resume coinage of the standard silver dollar, to which William B. Allison (right) added amendments in the Senate."

• The same could possibly be said for the other two photos, Sherman and Pittman. Also, I adjusted the alignment of the multi-image and the spacing throughout the article. I hope you approve. This should result in less disruptions with the headers. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think that I could combine the images of Sherman and Pittman, because they're in separate sections. I did expand their descriptions, though. Your changes to the article look great. I especially like the combined images of Bland and Allison.-RHM22 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there no recorded history about the motivations behind the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and other acts of congress that affect the history of this coin?
• The mass, diameter, thickness, composition, etc. are mentioned in the infobox but not discussed (or cited) in the article. Please add a section about the basics of the coin.

Other than that, the article certainly has promise and may gain my support with the necessary changes. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions! I'll go about fixing all your concerns right now.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think everything is fixed now except for one. I don't think I can change the tense, since it's still technically a dollar coin. If it was devalued or something, then I would feel fine changing it "The Morgan dollar was a dollar coin", but since it still is, I don't really think I can change it. As for the second line you mention, that is difficult too, because the phrase "Morgan dollar" is actually a relatively recent name for the coin and not something from its history. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not really sure what to do in this case. If you have any ideas, though, I definitely wouldn't be against implementing them! Thanks again for the suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The tense can remain as is unless someone else comments on it. If no one else sees an issue, then it will be fine. Also, I didn't mean to imply doing a second multi-image. I just meant that they should probably have slightly expanded captions, which you have done. However, there are other issues/questions above that were not addressed. Please see the last 2 bullet points. Also, I made a few more tweaks. I hope it's still okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the current coin FAs, I decided to change the first sentence in the lead to "was" to go with what has already been established. I'm not really sure what you mean about the other two things. I added an explanation about the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, but there were already explanations for the Pittman and Bland–Allison Acts. Did you mean a background for the Coinage Act of 1873? Also, I added a small section detailing the specifics (composition, diameter) to the "Production" section. I didn't add anything about the thickness because I couldn't find any references for that, but I removed out of the infobox entirely because it seems pretty useless. I supposed "reeded" isn't referenced, but I didn't really think that necessary since it's pretty common knowledge. I can add it if you want me to, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some background on the Coinage Act of 1873.-RHM22 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The mint marks and mass are still not mentioned in the article or, consequently, referenced. Also, according the Sherman Silver Purchase Act article, the act was not only passed to cause inflation to help farmers, but also to help mining companies turn a profit after they had over-mined the metal. Just a brief mention of both motivations should be included. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the problem! I used to have a quote in the article about the weight being 412½ grains, but what I forgot was that I had trimmed it down a while ago. Sorry for being so hardheaded about it! I added the information about the mining interests, which was a really good idea because they were definitely important in getting the act passed.-RHM22 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: As long as an image check passes, I feel this article meets FA standards based on my understanding of the stubject. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look good quality and reliable, citation formats also good. Brianboulton (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support: This looks, for the most part, like it meets the FA criteria. I do have a few quibbles, though:

• "Trade dollar": is it capitalized or not? Usage seems to vary throughout the article.
• Along the same lines, according to WP:Job titles, "President" should only be capitalized when talking about a specific President. So: "President Hayes", but "Hayes ran for president". --Coemgenus 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good catches with those! "Trade dollar" is a little difficult, but I went with lowercase. The reason being that "trade" simply means that the coins were meant to be used in trade and is not a name for the coin or design (such as "Seated Liberty", etc.). I also changed the job titles, including congressmen and senators.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, looks good. I changed to support. --Coemgenus 23:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Lead seems a bit on the long-and-detailed side - perhaps trim to 3 paragraphs instead of 4?
• Why are the mint marks small in the text but normal-sized in the infobox?
• Be consistent in the use of "DC" vs "D.C." Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those problems! I agree that the lead was needlessly detailed. I trimmed it down while still leaving the important information in. How do you think it looks now? I fixed your other concerns also.-RHM22 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, everything looks good now. Nice job! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review? Close paraphrase check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review concern:

• File:Senator and president pro tem Key Pittman (D-NV).jpg: http://bioguide.congress.gov/copyright.htm — "Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship. Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possible, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions." The images in the Collections are not solely produced by government employees (several photographs are private ones provided by the subjects themselves or their families). What makes this image of Pittman a government work? Replaced with the verifiably public domain image below. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review! I'm really not sure about the image copyright at all. I'm fine with removing the image if you think that the copyright status is questionable. I'll do a quick search for a free-use replacement.-RHM22 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest File:Key Pittman in 1915.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Images used in this article are compliant with policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I've worked with the nom a bit in helping him improve the article, and Sandy asked me to have a look in here. I'm positive about the article but would like to see a few things cleared up first, most of which have to do with telling the story better. I have made some changes directly, so these are only ones where I wasn't sure without having the sources here:

Lede

• "purchase between two and four million dollars worth of silver to be coined into dollars each month." This reads unclearly about whether the "dollars" were face value (i.e., the bullion it would take to coin between two and four million dollars) or market value (the actual amount spent). Perhaps if the latter you could rephrase it to say how much was spent per month.

That's a good idea. I fixed it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• You ought to make it clear up front that the Sherman act repealed the B-A act, because you mention the repeal of the Sherman act an then mention "a new provision" and the reader would be pardoned for puzzling over where the new provision came from.

  Just saying, I love the toning on that silver dollar!

I've fixed these concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

• The silver marketers would only make money this way if the Trade dollar was lighter than the standard dollar, right?

Well, not really, because the free coinage of the standard dollars and all other denominations had ended by this time. In other words, trade dollars were the only coin that miners could have their bullion coined into.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I feel like the first two paragraphs of the section tell a story, but there are bits and pieces in the wrong order. Start by mentioning that for a long time (I believe ever since the Mint was founded, given the famous story of GW and his silverware), citizens could have silver coined into coins at the mint (and I'd throw in a pipe to seignorage). Then I'd tell that story through, with the Fourth Coinage Act and then the Trade dollar. I would mention the Seated Liberty dollar as a separate paragraph. What you do by telling this clearly is help explain why there was this whole battle in Congress which eventually led to the Bland-Allison Act.

This is a little tricky. I reworded the section considerably, and I think it's a lot more cohesive now. I decided to mention the Seated dollar only briefly, since I don't really think it's important to the story.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would reverse the emphasis in the description of the legislation. Bland and Allison were only slightly concerned about silver dollars, what they wanted was Free Silver, or as much as they could get of that. What coin would be used was of small moment.

Great catch! I fixed that.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Design history

• Perhaps put the info on their later career into a note? I know, I asked you to include the info but when I'm reading it ...

I decided to remove some of the info. Since the article is about the Morgan dollar and not really Morgan himself, I decided to leave it out. If you think it should stay, I wouldn't be against adding it in a note, though.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Production

• It's unclear to me whether you are simply saying "they had to prepare the dies so it took a week before they could begin coining" or "something threw a spanner in the works". Right now, the article makes me think the latter is the case.

Well, I suppose it's a little of both. The dies took several strikes from the master die to fully bring up the detail. Should I add that?-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would strike the word delay and simply say when the striking began.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, sounds better. I fixed it now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the middle of the second paragraph, the prose just seems to pick up and wander away. Is there any way to avoid the mention of the Denver mint and the mintmarks and physical characteristics of the coin? I don't like the jumps in time and subject matter.

I don't like it where it is either, but an earlier reviewer said that I should have that information referenced in the prose, since it's in the infobox. The "production" section seems like the only place to include it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, split the paragraph then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! It looks better now.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• What was done with the rest of the purchased bullion? Subsidiary coinage?

Yup! I've added that.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Treasury release

I think you've got to finish the 60s story by saying when the Treasury made silver certificates no longer redeemable in silver.

I'm not sure about this. I believe the supply of dollars might have run out before the silver certificates were made non-redeemable.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I thinks so too, other than some which the Treasury pulled back, now that I think of it. It caused quite a crisis in Las Vegas, where they just used them for slot machines and one-dollar table wagers, by the way! But that has little to do with the Morgan dollar itself.

Yeah, not to get too far off-topic, but the Las Vegas people were the special interests involved in getting the 1964 dollars off the ground also.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Menna story "allegedly"? Is there reason to doubt his word?

I really have no idea if he actually said that or if someone else did. My reference just states that he allegedly used a 1904–S dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a way of quoting that? I imagine there were 1904-S dollars, right?

I'll search for a quote, but I probably won't be able to find one. Should I remove that extra bit if not? By the way, I was wondering why he would have used a 1904-S, and the only thing I can come up with is that the reverse design was slightly modified in 1900, though I don't know if the 1904 San Francisco issues would have been affected by that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was able to find a source confirming it, the U.S. Mint itself! I removed the "allegedly" and added the new ref for that fact.-RHM22 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Drop me a note when you want me to look again, I rarely watchlist FACs not my own.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I'm not sure that I fixed everything you mentioned, but I did some work that I hope improved the article.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you and I might say subsidiary coinage, but I doubt the reader would. I would simply say "dimes, quarters, and half-dollars". I'll look it over in a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! "Subsidiary coinage" does sound like a head-scratcher if you're not familiar with the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Well done, another worthy addition to our stable of numismatic articles. I may play with that Background section myself, but I don't see it as an impediment to FA, I'm notorious for being picky!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Repeat request from Sandy above: Has a spot check of sources been done for accuracy, close paraphrasing, etc? Issues I saw at a glance:

• "Prior to enactment of the Coinage Act, silver could be brought to the mints and coined into legal tender for a small fee" doesn't seem to be covered by page 428 of Fite. It just states that miners preferred to get rid of silver "for use in the arts" rather than take it to a mint. p. 429 describes the process and fee—should the ref be to page 429?
• WP:DASH: "Bland-Allison Act"
• WP:NBSP: "3:17 p.m.", "Coinage Act of 1837", etc.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the other two things, but I find the nbsp very confusing most of the time! Should I put it in between "3:17" and "p.m.", but not in between something like "1878 to 1921"?-RHM22 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I added the nbsp on the two examples you mentioned.-RHM22 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of a nonbreaking space is to keep a phrase, usually including numbers, together, when they would look odd if the line break forced part onto the next line.

I'm sure you agreed that this would look pretty odd, right now the time is 2:30
pm.

So between 2:30 and pm is a very good example. Also a number which is counting the noun, such as 99 names of God.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Laser Brain, the discrepancy is my fault, I suggested alternative language for RHM22 and I don't own that source and so did not realize what what I said was on the next page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Source check Seven books are cited. None of them seem problematical except the 1919 history book, which I raised an eyebrow at. However, it seems to be used for factual matters what will not have changed since 1919. There are two cites to The Numismatist, which is a very well regarded publication in coin collecting and study (note: Both RHM22 and I are dues-paying members of the American Numismatic Association, the publisher). There are a couple of government websites, both OK. All sources check out fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed all the sections that needed the nbsp. All the weights and measures used the convert template, so I didn't use it on those, but I did use it where the number of silver dollars sold to the UK is mentioned, for the Coinage Act and the "3:17 p.m." part (as mentioned above).-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I was asking about. Brian did check the quality of sources and refs above, but I was looking for a spot-check for close paraphrasing, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that checked? I don't think that Wehwalt has any of the offline sources I used except for Yeoman. Is there some type of internet program that does paraphrasing checks?-RHM22 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone has to have access to at least one of the sources. If that's not possible, then it's not possible. There are online tools to check, but of course they can only check against online sources. Thanks for the response! --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, like I said, Wehwalt probably has the Guide Book to U.S. Coins (a really common book to almost all numismatists), and a couple of sources are online. I'll ask Wehwalt if he can do a paraphrase check on the Guide Book.-RHM22 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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