Talk:Peace dollar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peace dollar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Peace dollar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 1, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 7, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 19, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 8, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
May 1, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Military history: North America / United States / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

Numismatics: American currency Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA nomination[edit]

I'd like to pass this article, but the large amount of edits about 2 days ago gives me pause concerning stability. Does anyone know if this article will see very large amounts of edits in the foreseeable future? I'll put this article on hold on the nomination page for now. Homestarmy 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like any edit warring or anything, just productive edits all around. It won't hurt to leave it on hold for a bit longer though, just to make sure. Kafziel 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the "stability" aspect of the Good Article process did not involve article improvements, simply reversions and wars. But if you want to keep it on hold a few days longer, that's acceptable to me. I don't plan on changing much, if anything, on the article. However, I would like to refer you to Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. I nominated when I did, rather than waiting, based on the feedback I received there. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I mentioned that the edits in recent history were all productive. I wouldn't have any problem approving this for GA, but if others have reservations about it then I don't think it will hurt to wait another day or two. Kafziel 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was really responding more to Homestarmy's concern than yours, but perhaps my paragraph spacing leaves something to be desired. Like I said, I'm fine with waiting a few more days if that's the only concern. : ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the content appeared to of been changing heavily so I didn't know what to expect next. For all I knew, I could of reviwed it, then a few days later the content would be compleatly different, so it concerned me :/. Homestarmy 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status[edit]

Since it seems the article won't be changing much in the future, this article probably counts as stable. I saw little sign of POV insertion, which thinking about it, im not entirely certain how one could even easily make a horribly POV article on a coin, but eh, you never know. It is well referenced mostly, seems fairly broad, and the pictures seem nice. I'd like to comment on a few things though if I may, firstly, the collectability section oddly seems out of place with the rest of the article because unlike most of the article, there are no references for it :/. The paragraph mentions something called the "red book", you might want to add it as a reference at the bottom, (prefereably with page number, otherwise it might be hard to find later) but if this book doesn't cite the whole paragraph, I think it would help if somebody gets the time to maybe find some references for it. [comment - I added a citation for the Red Book reference. Unfortunately I can't add a page number, since I didn't add the info in the first place and I only own the 2004 edition. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)]- Also, the sentence "Anyone who suspects they may have a 1921 or 1922 proof should have it examined by a professional, as it may be a forgery." reads like an advisory, and im not entirely certain if that's typical practice for coin articles or something, but whenever sources are obtained for this sort of statement, think about changing the wording to something like "Many sources advise that 1921 or 1922 proofs should be examined by professionals, as they often turn out to be forgeries", it just seemed a bit odd to me because I don't think i've ever seen Wikipedia articles have advisories in them :/ (Besides spoiler warnings) [comment - I debated about including that bit, but since an objective party has raised the concern as well, I've simply removed it altogether. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I'd also like to comment on the Pittman act section, I understand how you'd need to establish background for what led to the Peace dollars creation, but that section seems to be more about the Pittman act than the Morgan dollar becoming the Peace dollar. What I propose is that you combine it with the below section, remove information that doesn't directly have to do with the Peace Dollar and things which led to the peace dollar, (I.E. the parts about the act benefiting the mining industry and sponsors and all that) put that information in the Pittman act article if it isn't already in there, and have a see also: Pittman act line for the section, it just read a bit off topic to me when I read this section :/. [comment - OK, I've blended the two sections per your suggestion, leaving in the details that I think are still pertinent to the main article. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Finally, there were a few bits of unreferenced sentences I saw through the article, I specifically remember learning in history about the whole "Some people have illegal coins that didn't get melted down" bit, but I can't remember exactly what it was, but that line and the sentences below it about future coins not having silver in them could use a citation. Homestarmy 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [comment - I have added the appropriate sources for those two passages. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks for the feedback. All valid points, and I will attempt to address each of them in the next few days. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, I think I've managed to address your concerns. If I missed anything, please let me know. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hmm, that was fast, nice work heh. I suggest you offer up this article for a Peer Review soon, im not sure how this article would stack up to Featured Standards, but it can't be that far :). Homestarmy 00:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the kind words, I may do just that! --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

para problem[edit]

I have a problem with this paragraph:

Production of dollar coinage did not resume until the Eisenhower Dollar in 1971. That coin, however, has no silver content, except for some sold directly to collectors by the Mint. Likewise, the Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars minted for circulation contain no silver, making the Peace Dollar the last true silver dollar.

To me the last sentence is muddy. It would make one think that SBA, Sac, and Prez dollars not stuck for circulation have silver. This is inncorrect, as they have never existed. The only way to get a post-Peace design dollar coin is the blue and brown Ikes. - Thanks, Hoshie 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Peace Dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
This is 'reasonably well written, but there is room for improvement. the prose is a little stilted in places.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I fixed some dead links. The statement: In recent years, however, coin collectors have come to view the Peace Dollar as an attractive and desirable coin. needs attribution; Roughly one million examples were struck before it was realized that the relief on the coin was so high that it was difficult to strike, and the dies used were breaking at a high rate. Also, the coins were nearly impossible to stack. The relief was lowered considerably starting with the 1922 issue. That year more than 84 million Peace Dollars were struck, the highest mintage of the series. needs attribution; other sources used sources used appear to be RS
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It should be noted that because of this, one should be careful to purchase these coins from reliable sources only. sounds like a POV, needs attributing to a RS.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, on hold for the few concerns above to be addressed. I will inform major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been no action on this in the last seven days so I am de-listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1926, "large mintage"?[edit]

From the chart earlier in the article, the mintage for this year doesn't seem particularly large, at least not from the Philly & Denver mints. So why does the article later claim there was a "large mintage" from all 3 mints in 1926? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

This article is full of improper capitalization. In English, proper nouns are capitalized; common nouns are not capitalized. I tried to get it fixed once only to have the correction reverted. OK, so let's consult and do it line by line. Look at this usage, On December 13, the Commission assembled to review the submitted designs, Can anyone justify (in the Wiki Manual of Style) the capitalization of "Commission" in this line? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because a specific commission is involved. That one could go either way in my view, but your change of such things as "Mint" short for Bureau of the Mint and Treasury for United States Treasury--keep in mind that this has been discussed at FAC, if not in this article, than in my submission of others. This passed FAC in this form.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but what is "FAC?" There is no rule in English nor in the Wiki Manual of Style that says the word "Mint" (nor "Army," nor "Commission") may be capitalized without some designation making it part of a proper noun (US Mint, British Army, or Warren Commission"). Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened forms are still capitalized. I refer to WP:FAC, which is the intense review process articles undergo before reaching the status that allows them to appear on the Main Page. If you look up this page, near the top, you will see an "article milestones" entry, expand it and one of the items will say "Featured Article Candidate". Click on that and that will take you to the archived discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling dumb. I cannot find anything like "article milestones." I would appreciate your further help. But, lookie [[1]] shortened forms are not capitalized. Happy New Year! Paul, in Saudi (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See it under the text about the article appeared on the main page on 12/28/11. And a good new year to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wehwalt, I want to find what you are referencing but I cannot. The Manual of Style seems quite clear on this point. English does not capitalize a common noun just because we all know what proper noun we are talking about. There simply is no such rule. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion here. The capitalization in the article was accepted. Also remember that the rules are to be applied with common sense. "mint" would lead to confusion between an individual mint and the former Bureau of the Mint, and treasury is not customarily lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us give this a rest for the evening, as well think better when we sleep on it. Besides I hope we have better things to do this evening. But even if we were to make up a rule of grammar about "mint," it would not apply to "Commission." Do we really want to examine each and every capitalized noun, or simply accept the standard rules of the language? I know which would be easier. (Still, I am impressed by the discussion you cited. They came to the wrong conclusion, but certainly used the fine-toothed comb. Good night. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will concede commission.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization II, Electric Bugaloo[edit]

OK, so now look at paragraph The public believed the announced design, which included a broken sword, was illustrative of defeat, and the Mint hastily acted to remove the sword. The Peace dollar was first struck on December 28, 1921; just over a million were coined bearing a 1921 date. When the Pittman Act requirements were met in 1928, the mint ceased to strike the ... See how "mint" is capitalized in the first instance but not the second. Which do you prefer? Obviously one way or the other must be correct. (I would of course propose using lower-case.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. It should be Mint in the second instance as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mintage[edit]

What does it mean if there isn't a letter under the "ONE"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it was struck at the Philadelphia Mint. I've started to add that to infoboxes, but need to go back and deal with older articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Mint didn't add a mint mark until 1980. Except for the 1942-1945 silver Nickles.--Ant2242 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the 1979 Anthony dollars.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

peace dollar dated 1923 is with us[edit]

in your page it hasbeen mentioned that the peace dollar remain in minting with date 1921 till 1928(upto a new act) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numismatic haridubey (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were minted during those years, and in 1934 and 1935. Silver dollars were unpopular and were usually struck only in response to a congressional act sparked by the silver industry. They were not needed for circulation because except in limited numbers in the Western US, they really didn't. Nevada gambling use did not become significant until after World War II.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In media section[edit]

this coin was featured by "two face" in 'the dark knight". the coin was altered having another face on the back should we explain this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I prefer to avoid such things as not truly related to the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peace dollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source issue[edit]

Hi User:Wehwalt, I guess source for this part is the red book, but which year, page, and maybe should list that book within references.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that but I will look at my Red Book and check and cite it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]