Talk:Walking Liberty half dollar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "In 1915, Mint Director Robert W. Woolley believed that the act granting him the authority to replace coin designs that had been in use for 25 years also required their replacement after that period." That implies he only believed it in 1915.

Background and inception

• "The Barber coinage, after its release, attracted considerable public dissatisfaction." How could it have attracted public dissatisfaction after before its release.

The public didn't get to see it until after it was released. At the time, the government took the position it was illegal to reproduce coin designs in print.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant how could it attract dissatisfaction before its release? Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll strike the clause. It has happened though that coins have attracted dissatisfaction before their release, see Peace dollar where it was announced the coin would feature a broken sword and in the aftermath of World War I (1921), this caused such irritation that George Morgan hastily removed the sword from the dies.

• "In reply, McAdoo wrote '[l]et the mint submit designs before we try anyone else' on the memorandum." Why does that quote start with "[l]et"? If there's a simple typo in the source it can be quietly fixed. Or is it because in the quote the "l" is capitalised?

Capitalized.

• "Lange notes that "numerous delays were encountered as the artists fine-tuned their models while simultaneously avoiding obstacles thrown in their path by Barber. While his observations regarding many aspects of practical coinage were quite accurate ...". Can we do anything about that "while ... while"?

It's inside a quote. It's an informative enough quote that I hate to paraphrase.

Preparation

• "The letter "L" would be placed in the concavity formed by the flag as it drapes under the figure's left elbow". Why "would be"?

Fair enough, was then. I'm waiting until I'm sure you're done before diving in to avoid ec.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifications

• "Actual production of the fifty-cent piece was delayed". It was called a "50-cent piece" in the lead.

Touche.

• "Weinman responding hoping that Joyce would prevent the figure of Liberty from being unduly reduced, and rendering his account." Not really a proper sentence.

• "The defect was found to be a "fin", extra metal which was striking as a very high rim around the coin". How could the metal be a striking?

• "As this occurred, the MInt began the work of converting the Barber-modified designs to working dies from which circulation coins could be struck." As what occurred? Is "MInt" correct?

"Mint" is the organization, the Bureau of the Mint, which in 1916, was running three coinage facilities. I could say "engraver's department". As Joyce and Weinman were corresponding about the beaded border.

It says "MInt" though, not "Mint". Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clumsy me Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Production and collecting

• "The majority of the pieces struck at Denver (1917-D) and San Francisco (1917-S) that year bear the mint mark on the reverse." I don't think that quite works. The majority of pieces struck at Denver and San Francisco or just in 1917?

The majority of those struck at Denver and San Francisco in 1917. I'll rephrase.

• "... but many dates are scarce in Mint State condition, including the 1921 and 1921-D." Isn't there some redundancy in "Mint State condition"? And I don't quite follow the "1921 and 1921-D"; is that especially the 1921-D?

As it happens, the 1921-D is rarer. But I didn't actually mean to imply it, I was just giving examples and the 1921 falls before the 1921-D in catalog order. I don't think Mint State condition is redundant but want to look at the web for usages.

• "They principally involve the mint mark". Should that be "Mint mark"?

No, lower case is proper. It is a term of art.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Images aren't final yet. I'm trying to get an image of Joyce, which will go where the Assay Commission image is now. That one will replace the image of Woolley, which I'll remove from the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll assess the article on the images as they are when I close the review. What you do after that is entirely up to you. Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. When it comes in, I'll scan it and see where we go.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Design

• "The reverse is similar to Weinman's medal for the American Institute of Architects, which had been widely admired for the power of the depicted eagle, although the sculptor replaced the laurel on the medal with a pine sapling." That last bit, beginning with "although", doesn't seem to have any connection with what precedes it (admiration for the design of the eagle).

  Would "The reverse is similar to Weinman's medal for the American Institute of Architect, though the sculptor replaced the laurel on the deal with a pine sapling. Weinman's work on the medal had been widely admired for the power of the depicted eagle." be OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  It would if you changed the "though" to "although". Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  OK, will make that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've either changed or explained all the items questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

• The author field for File:Von engelken.png says that "His [Morgan's] signature is on the cutoff of Roberts' breast, but is not visible because of the angle." But isn't this an image of von Engelken?

• Yes, I photographed both around the same time and reused text. I should have changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That has now been corrected. Morgan's monogram M is visible near the rim between seven and eight o'clock.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, then I think we can wrap this up now. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.