Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury dime/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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 19 June 2011 [1].

---

Mercury dime

Mercury dime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Mercury dime/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The fifth in my series on the Great Recoinage of US coins between 1907–1921 depicts how warped the artistic sense of Americans can be, who in the case of the so-called Mercury dime mistook the female goddess of Liberty for the male god Mercury. Just goes to show. The article more or less stars the Engraver to the United States Mint at Philadelphia, Charles E. Barber who in the final ten years of his 37 years in office made life a living hell for any sculptor who aspired to design US coins—especially if the sculptor sought to displace one of Barber's designs. Fortunately, in this case, the product is worth it as the Mercury dime is one of the most beautiful US coins. This has gone through GA and a couple of editors have been kind enough to informally review it. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Lange 2006
• Ref 24: why "page" here instead of "p."? Also, why "p" instead of "p." on ref 20?
• Be consistent in whether you include "D.C." or not in Washington refs
• Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether you include a period before Stella Coin News or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

All done. Thank you. You have quite an eye for detail!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments, leaning to support: As usual in this series the detail is impressive. My quibbles are mainly concerned with with prose issues:-

• Inconsistency: "25 years" in lead, "twenty-five years" in text.

Done

• "Woolley asked that if they did not like the designs from the Mint, that they select..." The second "that" needs removal

• I have copyedited an alternative, as I don't think your rephrasing quite worked. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Prose variation: The word "design" (or "designs" or "designed") occurs rather frequently throughout the article. For example, in the paragraph beginning "On December 3, Woolley..." the word occurs 10 times, including three in one line. Given the subject matter some repetition is probably inevitable, but a little variation would enhance readability.
• Ponderous, and unnecessary passive voice: "The design sketches were submitted in mid-February, and on February 23, the three sculptors met with Woolley in New York so the artists could present the designs to the Mint director and answer his questions." Could easily be shortened to "The three sculptors presented their design sketches to Woolley for discussion on February 23". (The word "discussion" in the next sentence would require changing, perhaps to "consultations".)
• "While his observations regarding many aspects of practical coinage were quite accurate, they clearly could have been presented in a more constructive manner." Clarify that "his" refers to Barber. I assume that this opinion is from Lange, though this is not totally clear.
• Design section: Both images have been sized at 200px. Is there a reason for this? The images tend to dominate the text, and in my view could be set at "upright" without disadvantage as to clarity.
• "Weinman himself..." - "himself" unnecessary
• "On July 15, Woolley resigned as Mint director so he could work as publicity chairman of the Wilson reelection campaign; Fred H. Chaffin became acting director and the new Mint director, Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken would not take office until September 1, 1916". Awkwardly put at present; I suggest "On July 15, Woolley resigned as Mint director so he could work as publicity chairman of the Wilson reelection campaign. As the new director, Friedrich Johannes Hugo von Engelken, would not take office until September 1, 1916, Fred H. Chaffin became acting director."
• Consistency needed: both "acting director" and "Acting Director" appear.

I think I did it per MOS, it is "Acting Director Chaffin" but "Chaffin, while acting director," (or whatever). Have I misinterpreted?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Of the three circulating coins released in late 1916, the Mercury dime was particularly praised, and quantities sold were limited on the first day of issue." I don't understand the relationship of the final clause to the rest of the sentence.
• Is the term "moniker" acceptable encyclopedic language in the US? In British English it is slang pure and simple, and reads oddly in scholarly prose, rather as though a nose was referred to as a schnozzle.

I don't want to make a big issue about this but I fail to see why "moniker" would not be considered encyclopedic language. Meriam-Webster defines it as: "a descriptive or familiar name given instead of or in addition to the one belonging to an individual". I would actually consider it to be slightly more appropriate than the word "nickname" with which it was replaced in the article as "moniker" carries more of an implication of being descriptive. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sinnock needs identifying at first, not second mention.

I don't see any problem in resolving these. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

All these things are done, except where questioned, though I varied from your suggestions in a few cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All OK. You will see my slight copyedit where I was still unhappy with the prose. Happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read the article through twice and have found nothing that fails to meet any of the FA criteria. I do not comment on the images, leaving that to the image specialists, but otherwise the article is, in my judgment, comprehensive, balanced, a pleasure to read – even to one like me who knows nothing of the subject – and formidably referenced. This is the sort of top-class niche article that shows Wikipedia at its best. Tim riley (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's really nice of you. An image check by someone would be helpful and I don't think difficult. Of the images, all but three are provably published in the US pre 1923, two are by Bobby131313, and I've checked the licenses, and the final one is by me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Only thing I saw wrong with the article was a missing period, which took only a few seconds to fix. Everything else is great, and easily meets the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and for the fix. Three supports, but no image check has been done, and only a limited source check.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please request image check from ... someone ... Jappalang or Nikkimaria ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review concern:

• File:PhiladelphiaMintEngravers.JPG: The image is asserted to have fallen into the public domain because it was published before 1923 ({{PD-1923}}); so where was this published? Who is the photographer (the Mint, an organization, could not take a photograph). Image removed

Just the above required for clarification. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Couldn't find anything in contemporary Mint publications.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Remaining images are verified to be in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support (changes addressed during GA review) Racepacket (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused as to the background of the coin. The lead and the caption of Woolley's portrait seem to suggest the Barber coinage design did not have to be changed every 25 years, but the quote at the bottom of the "inception" section says it "must be changed by law every 25 years". Did the law change along the line? Also, I don't think you need a "background" subsection, since there's only one topic to start with. Otherwise an excellent read so far... I came here after browsing some of the existing coin FA articles, which inspired me to learn more. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well the coin articles are a work in progress ... but getting to your point. The Mint was mistaken, and there's a quote in the article from a numismatic historian to that effect. They thought they had to. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, after re-reading, I think I get it. Juliancolton (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Very interesting and thorough article which covers all the surprisingly intriguing social and technical aspects of coin production. Seems to cite solid sources, and I like the use of images as an educational supplement to the content as opposed to decoration. Juliancolton (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I've been working on better use of images.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Jappalang for the image review, and the supporters for taking the time to review the article. Especially the GA Reviewer, Racepacket, whose time is unhappily limited. FiveSix supports, and checks seem to be done. If there are concerns about the article, please feel free to make them known.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support This probably isn't needed, but I felt it important to support this fine article before it passes. This may be the most important articles on an uncurrent coin yet completed on Wikipedia and it's wonderfully written and nicely imaged. It's an all around great article!-RHM22 (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I think your Morgan dollar article far more important. I think it gets more hits daily than any article for a coin no longer struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might, but that's not saying much! Most people are probably looking for the NASCAR team.-RHM22 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You take what you can get!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to get through FAC tomorrow-- Wehwalt, you can put up another nom in the event you need to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Unnecessary of course, but I registered it because I'd like to see this unnecessary repetition fixed:

• "Von Engelken stopped production of the dime that day ... Von Engelken ordered production halted".

Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Nice catch. Thank you for the support anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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