Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Trade dollar (United States coin)/archive1

Comments from Cryptic C62

• "Eventually, the coins made their way into American commerce, causing frustration among those who were given them in payment of services." Why would this cause frustration?

I explain it in more detail later in the article, though I could add more information to the lead if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There are times when a phrase in the lead makes a reader think "Ah yes, I look forward to reading more about this fun fact which in itself I fully understand." This is fine, but there are also times when the thought process goes more along the lines of "Ah shit, I wish I knew what the hell the Wikipedias were talking about in regards to this fun-sounding fact which I do not understand." It is my humble opinion that without proper context, this statement belongs to the latter category. Expanding it further is one solution, another would be to simply swap this out with a more readily-understood fact from the same section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! I have reworded it, and I think it looks a lot better. After rereading it, I think it was definitely a good idea to include the extra information.-RHM22 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Production of proof coins officially ended in 1883, though production of business strikes ceased in 1878." This should be rewritten in chronological order.
• The lead and body should both give estimates or exact figures for the total number of coins produced and coins that have survived (if this information is available, which I suspect it is not).

Nope, there aren't any hard numbers on the amount that survived. I believe the government kept records when the trade dollars were redeemed, but of course not all of the trade dollars that were melted were melted by the Treasury.-RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the paragraph that begins with "Even though production of business strikes ended in 1878...": Why is this in the Reception section? It should be in Production.
• Infobox: What does "reeded" mean?
• Infobox: The composition figures should spell out the full names of the elements rather than using the symbols. The symbols should generally be used only in hard science articles in which spelling out element names several hundred times would be cumbersome.
• The infobox should make it clear whether the coin is still legal tender or not.

I'm not sure about this. I removed the notation about the value of the coin being one dollar, because that's ambiguous at best. The original legislation called for the coin to be legal tender for up to five dollars. The legal tender was revoked, but then it was unintentionally restored in 1965. Obviously, trade dollars were completely out of commerce in 1965, so that wasn't on their mind when they passed the legislation. The trade dollar is legal tender, but no one really knows whether it's valued at one dollar or five dollars, as per the original legislation.-RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I had thought that the legality of any tender would be a black and white issue. Evidently I was quite wrong! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The trade dollar is a tricky coin. It started out confusing, because it was (supposedly) not intended to circulate in the United States. As such, it wasn't really given a denomination.-RHM22 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• The infobox should give figures in both metric and customary units.

Thanks for all the work that you've put into the article thus far! I'm sure that those interested in the field of numismatics will greatly appreciate your continuing effort to improve our coverage of coins. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and praise! I have addressed all of your concerns, except those that I've made a note on above. I'll add the total number minted, though it'll take a little while for me to add it all up.-RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)