Wikipedia:Peer review/Shield nickel/archive1

Shield nickel

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 intend to nominate it for FA. It is short but comprehensive.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

When images use the thumb parameter, the size shouldn't be included as its default size is specified by a user's preferences.
"Business strikes" → I don't know if there is a MOS that requires this but, I've never heard that phrase before (usually hearing it called "circulation" instead).
Make the table sortable.
"...to be made out of copper-nickel, the same alloy of which American nickels are struck today."
- Tweaked: "...to be made out of copper-nickel; the same alloy of which all modern American nickels are struck."

Problem is, there, the War Nickels.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference in using "piece" instead of "coin" (i.e. "three-cent piece" vs. "three-cent coin")?

None at all, I am just trying to avoid using the same word repeatedly.

Because "Shield nickel" is used everywhere else in the article, should the "Nickel" in the infobox title also be lower-case?
"...confused contemporary observers."
- Why was this confusing? Also who/what are "contemporary observers"?

I will strike this out, since I can't give any further info.

"As with many denominations of United States coins, there are two major varieties of the 1873 piece, the "closed 3" and "open 3"."
- Why were the different varieties made in the first place?

Explained in detail.

What source did you use for the mintage numbers? I looked it up a book I've got, and some of the numbers of proofs were slightly different.

Peters. If it is helpful, I can change it to the Red Book. Some of them, Bowers explains are estimates based on die usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works (the book I have is the Blue Book); placing a footnote explaining how Bowers came up with the estimates would work as well. Also if, one source is being used to cite the entire table, I usually place the citation in the column header, as a citation in the last entry in the table could be confused with a citation for only that particular entry. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 18:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll work on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the current set of external links satisfy WP:EL (namely #1 in WP:ELNO).

Being a numismatist myself, I found this to be a very interesting article. FA is possible; length shouldn't be a problem (I think there are FA tropical storms that are shorter than this article). If these comments were useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how one found yours. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 03:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'll play with these--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working up a sortable table in my sandbox, but it may take me a while. Lots of pain in the neck stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]