Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Standing Liberty quarter/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 Ucucha 18:43, 23 October 2011 [1].

---

Standing Liberty quarter

Standing Liberty quarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Standing Liberty quarter/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The seventh (the eighth will be next) in a hoped for ten article series on the Great Redesign of US coinage from 1907 to 1921. As usual, this features the usual officials and artists butting heads, one less than untimely death, and the usual insanities behind the scenes at the United States Mint. It's had a peer review.Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably template artifacts. I'll go through and check. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments, mainly minor:-

• Punc point: in the lead, should there be a comma after "including the quarter dollar"?
• "formerly-bare" is an interesting adjectival construction, but I think the hyphen is unnecessary.
• "proved to wear away quickly" - why not "wore away quickly"? And perhaps rephrase the sentence to avoid "date" repetition.
• "...similar dimes, quarter dollars, and half dollars, all designed by..." I imagine it was the designs rather than the coins that were similar, so: "dimes, quarter dollars, and half dollars, all with similar designs by..."
• The "Inception" section seems to cover a lot more than the "inception" of this group of coins - e.g. all the preliminary design stages. Perhaps there is a case for subdivision, or at least a more embracing title?
• Design section: Image overload? It's very crowded around here, with two whole paragraphs squeezed between pics. I wonder, how relevant is the McKinley monument?
• "Doscher became well known as "the girl on the quarter" and died in 1970 at age 88". "And" should not be used to link non-related facts in a single sentence. I'd go for "Doscher, who died in 1970 at age 88, became well known as "the girl on the quarter"

I'm going to play around with that one, for chronology reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• "his Liberty faces left, in the direction of the European war". How does that work? "Left" and "east" are not synonymous.
  • Maybe I am thick, but I'm still confused here. Coins move around; their right-facing images won't always be pointing towards Europe. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's heraldry. "right" is considered "east". See double-headed eagle (no, that is not a coin) for an example.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• "MacNeil was at first awarded the reverse of the quarter only provisionally..." I'd say that the words "at first" and "only" are unnecessary
• "his major objection had to be" → "his major objection was"
• Another punc point (in Revision): comma required after "completed in mid-February"
  • "His new version, completed in mid-February for the first time covers Liberty's breast..." - to me, that comma seems necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• One more punc point in Revision: fifth paragraph, first sentence. More than a comma required after "the Third District". Sentence should end there, then "He was finally appointed..."

This fits in nicely with the ongoing US coinage series, and I'll be happy to support when the above are addressed. Two deaths is about par for the course. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by 1916 they had mostly gotten rid of the yellow fever, which was the trouble in the 1790s. The saga is near its end, I'm afraid, only two more. Thank you for the review, I will work through these either tonight or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You've dealt with most of my points. Would you mind commenting on the two I have left open, per above> Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added the comma. That leaves the East as Left.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I think I get the left-right thing, but my synapses are presently at half speed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Image commentary:

• File:1917 Type 1 quarter.jpg, File:1918 17 Standing Liberty quarter obverse.jpg: Page number?

  Will check.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  The colored image pages do not have page numbers. Incidentally, I spoke with Don Kagin at ANA this summer, he was fine with us using his images. We happened to walk to the convention from the hotels at the same time ...

  A "opposite p. xx" or "between pp. xx, yy" could do. We could ignore this if the whole catalog is unnumbered. Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  My mistake, it is from another catalog. I need to troll through my image bank for the original scans.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  They are from Steve Ivy's catalogs, which did have page numbers. Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Standing Liberty 1916 reverse.jpg, File:Standing Liberty type 2 reverse.jpg: The pictures are a bit blurry (the first is quite so), is it possible to retake them?

  No, I got that off an exhibit and a coin dealer stand at the ANA convention. I don't own any Standing Liberty quarters. If you feel it is a problem for the viewer, I can probably substitute black and white ones from the ANA catalog.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  If a self-taken image is blurry, then it was the best I could do. I would be grateful, since this is the second consecutive FAC in which this was raised, that reviewers assume that as I strive for the best possible text, I seek to include the best possible images in the article. It is not always possible due to angle, lighting, intervening glass, and a body heading towards middle age that sometimes shakes. I would be very grateful if reviewers would take this as a given.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  The images are of serviceable quality that their use could not be opposed to (I am just asking if it could be improved). Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  I can get one of them from the image you proffered but you're going to have to live with the Type 1 reverse until something better comes along. The thing is, reverses don't tend to get photographed as much, especially in this case with the mint mark on the obverse. I should add that I did not start writing until I got the reverse images at ANA in August. You can't just ask to photograph coins! Dealers get suspicious. Even though I had a photo pass, I found very few dealers willing to cooperate before I lost my nerve.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks to our new colleague, User:BrandonBigheart, I believe all concerns as to the quality of the image are assuaged. Mmm. I love the toning on the 1926.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Mckinleymemorial.jpg: "No known U.S. copyright restrictions" is not good enough, especially when the university itself "makes no warranty ... that [use of any material displayed or distributed through the CU Library Gateway] would not not infringe privately owned rights."[2] The photographer is not identified; as such, if this photograph was unpublished, then it would be copyrighted until 2027–2036 (120 years after creation). Luckily... it was published (I noted the publication detail on the image page), so be careful in the future. Out of curiosity, why was File:McKinley Memorial Ohio Statehouse.JPG not chosen?

  Obviously I didn't see it. You came at this from a different angle than me, I started with the image publication date, and worked form there. I was never in doubt that the image was PD, pre 1923 publication, sculpture erected in US before 1923, no brainer. As Brian seems to think the image makes things too crowded, I'm deleting it anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Girl on the quarter.png: Was this image obtained online? If so, what is the link?

Had some difficulty finding it but eventually did, though the link is to the whole newspaper, oddly for Google News..--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Would it not be better to use one of the photographs of him in commons:Category:Robert W. Woolley instead of File:Woolley medal.png to show Woolley?

  I would say that the reader doesn't really care what Woolley looks like and that, given that, it is appropriate to use a medal that exhibits both Woolley's appearance and also the work of Morgan, who plays a significant part in the latter portion of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

These are more like questions to improve the images; all images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. To the extent possible, those things are done. I continue to look for better images of the reverses, but don't feel like raiding my ten-year-old nephew's coin collection.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I do have black and white photos of the reverses from Kagin's 1977 catalog. However, they will not stand very much enlarging. I'd use them in a pinch but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How about using extracts from File:Standing Liberty Quarter.jpg (although the licensing for the photograph has to be clarified)? Perhaps http://www.mrbrklyn.com/slq.html might be willing to release his photographs under a suitable license? Jappalang (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked at MCQ about images that User:Bobby131313 uploaded before he retired but did not properly tag, the consensus was that his intent was clearly to donate to Wikipedia and an appropriate tag can be added. That gets us the Type 2 reverse, which is the more worn one. The Type 1 reverse doesn't look bad in thumbnail and it is harder to come by. That's from a very expensive coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not too entirely certain Bobby131313 retired (check his contributions), but in any case if consensus agrees, let us tag this image properly and use it. I thought this image is Type 1 (design 1916, discontinued 1917)? The eagle does not have the stars beneath it. Jappalang (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he came back, that would be a good thing as US coins in relatively pristine condition are not cheap, and coin photography is not easy. Plus I was very sorry to see him leave under those circumstances, irritated at a bot. I have some that came out well and others that I thought came out well until the image hawks started carping. I'll drop a note at Bobby's talk page and ask him to take care of it himself, then. Yes, I did not look carefully at it, it is a Type 1. Actually, the 1916 and the 1917 Type 1 are different, as explained in the article but leaving aside the date, the differences are the sort of thing specialists care about.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I found photographs even better than that by Bobby, but they are not expressly "free". Posting it on the talk page so as not to distract from this FAC. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Commentary on text and content:

Lede

• I feel there is a bit of choppiness here and some parts might be confusing to the layman. I also think the Mint cannot "believe" in something; furthermore, it seems the motion to replace the coin was started in late 1915. This sentence also seems disconnected from the previous paragraph. I took the bold step of editing the lede. Is this still accurate?

  Yes, but I will have to play with it a bit. I dislike to ascribe a date to a belief!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Your further edits made it much better. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Inception

• I think the first two paragraphs after the quote of the Act can be merged and condensed. I think pertinent details of the Barber coinage would only be the creator and reaction it received.

• "... and MacNeil was allowed to design both sides of the quarter, subject to his making modifications to his submission."

  Whose modifications, whose submission? It does not seem to make sense if both "his"s refer to MacNeil.

Design

• "... MacNeil's wife, who saw MacDowell as a potential rival."

  Rival for her husband's affections, rival for being the model for the coin, or for what?

  Affections. I have no information that MacNeil ever considered putting his wife on the coin, although this was not unheard of see Peace dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Preparation

• "Woolley's objections to the quarter's obverse have not survived, ..."

  I think it should be "Records of Woolley's objections ..." (I am not too sure either about the use of "survive"—implication of difficulty or danger to its existence).

  95 years of being a government document is hazardous, even without Sandy Berger's eyes!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• "... von Engelken decided to revert to MacNeil's original obverse design: that is, without the dolphins."

  How did this design overcome the difficulties encountered in producing the dime and half dollar?

  (ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Standing Liberty quarter/archive1#Continued discussion of design changes to the coin) Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  Resolved. Jappalang (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision

• "No records of his visit survive, ..."

  Same issue as previous "survive"

  I'll work around these. "are known to exist"?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  I think that phrasing would work. Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "QUARTER DOLLAR" in capital format when "In God We Trust" (in Design) is not?

  Good point. I don't have a rational explanation so I will change it.

Except for the above non-stylistic concerns, I could follow the article quite clearly. Jappalang (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the reviewers for their, er, reviews. I believe I am fully up to date now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: I believe this article is comprehensive and clear on the history of this little quarter (with a spot of obscenity and jealousy, no less). Jappalang (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said in the nom edit summary, the rumors that the Type 1 was hoarded by teenage boys is probably not true.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support – Clear, readable, well-proportioned and, as far as a non-expert in numismatics can tell, comprehensive, impressively referenced, and unbiased. (Only one comment: on my screen – newish laptop with screen twice as wide as tall, as they all seem to be now – there is a big gap of white space in the Background and inception section between the para ending "successful with one piece" and the next one. I think this is caused by having the image of Woolley on the right immediately under the infobox; moving it left would, I think, eliminate the problem. There is a similar problem, though with a smaller white gap, in "Revision" between the para ending "and the words 'Quarter Dollar'" and the next. Again, I think moving one of the adjacent images to the left would fix it.) – Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll play with this later in the day, I have to go out shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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