Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury dime/archive1

Mercury dime

Featured article candidates/Mercury dime/archive1

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

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 of 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Comments, 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
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)[reply]

"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.
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)[reply]

No, I am working through them slowly in between trying to finish up other work. It will all be done today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]