Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walking Liberty half dollar/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 01:03, 6 December 2011 [1].

---

Walking Liberty half dollar

Walking Liberty half dollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Walking Liberty half dollar/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This is the ninth and final article on the Great Coin Redesign of 1907-1921 (there may have to be an additional overall article to gain the Featured Topic designation) The Walking Liberty half dollar. Undoubtedly beautiful, but it caused the Mint a lot of grief for thirty years. This turned out to be one of the articles where an unexpected person runs away with the article, in this case Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam M. Joyce, who did not like all the new coins, and they were a terrible pain to produce, but he went to bat to have the new coin struck as close to the artist's conception as possible. I hope you enjoy it. It is a beautiful coin and the "heads" side has graced the American Silver Eagle for the past quarter century. Second nom posted with permission of Ucucha. A special thank you to BrandonBigheart for the beautiful infobox images.Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can footnotes be in columns?
• FN 50: publisher?
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and dashed ISBNs
• Be consistent in whether publishers/locations are included for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like to use this for references: {{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}. I'll circle back later for a full review when i get the time. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll insert it. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That is done. I do not include locations when it is clear from the periodical title, but I see I was not consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: More comments:

• In "Background and inception", you start of two consecutive sentences with "The Barber coinage..." Maybe the second could be "The coins..."
• ...and that's the only flaw I could find. Great article! I've enjoyed this recoinage series. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• OK, one more: do you think linking to Palladium coin might be useful in the last section? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! I had no idea there was such a link. I will make the changes shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are done. Thanks for the praise btw. It's been a fun series.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support, one suggestion Nice work. Personally, I'd prefer preoccupied to intensely busy, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to overuse that intensely busy phrase. I don't like preoccupied, that implies a mental state to me, rather than the physical manufacturing activities of the Mint. I'll work on an alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Weinman's design of a Liberty striding towards the Sun proved difficult to perfect". Don't think the "a" adds anything here.
• Background and inception: "and on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations of their work answer his questions." Seems like it's missing an "and" before "answer his questions".
• Design: Try to avoid having a repetition from one sentence to another, like in "designed by Weinman. Weinman...".
• Don't think another Walter Breen link is needed here after the one late in the previous section.
• Preparation: "This permitted him to extend LIberty's head almost to the top of the coin". The I in Liberty shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work through these this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Overlooked doing it, I'm afraid. They are done now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Lovely, as is the norm with this series. Everything looks up to scratch. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the reviews and supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1916_United_States_Assay_Commission.png: page number?
• File:Walkinglibertyhalfdollar2.jpg: need copyright/licensing info for the coin as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Can the image of the plaquette of Joyce be moved? Currently it causes an unsightly large gap in the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be difficult. As this is Joyce's moment in the sun, so to speak, I'd like the plaquette there. So I made the captions less wordy. That should do the trick. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• There is info about clamor for a redesign before the minimum timeframe for a coin design, but no clear info on what that minimum timeframe is.

The second sentence of the article mentions the 25 year restriction; the body of the article leads off with the law which gives the 25 years (and also allows the Mint to hire private artists). That explains to the reader the situation and the discussion which did arise before 1916 is mentioned.

• It's mentioned that Woolley wanted unique designs for each coin because of prior similarity. First off, the reason why is not answered here (I have an idea, but it could be wrong). The second is the wording doesn't make it clear if he just means the immediate prior design or all designs of those coins were similar.

We don't know. Mint records from that time, mostly owing to the "Hackel debacle", the shredding of many Mint records by Carter's mint director, Stella Hackel, are incomplete.

• "...on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations..." - should probably Wikilink this as its not clear it means the state or the city.

Good point. It was actually at the New York Assay Office, so on "Mint territory" in NYC.

• The article is heavily quote laiden. Some of these are great, but and I think some this one "evidently the haste called the engraving...." could be better paraphased without losing any context.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look at the shorter quotes. Sometimes they are opinions, so I want to attribute them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped three of them in favor of descriptions including the one you mentioned. Some of them are needed to give the reader a flavor for the times, or the people involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Another thing: about the Palladium coin, the date is from June. That's half-a-year ago. There isn't anything newer considering it was up in the air then?∞陣内Jinnai 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I read Coin World or at least look at the headlines every issue and also I just ran a few google news searches. The eagles are in the news because of a special limited edition set that is getting a lot of interest, they would headline approval of the palladium coin. And I just checked the MInt website.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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