Talk:Lafayette dollar

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lafayette dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon my initial review, this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status, and I look forward to conducting a more thorough review in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Wehwalt, I commend you on a thorough and comprehensive job well done on this article! As I stated above, this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status. I have only a few very minor comments and suggestions that need to be addressed before this article passes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the lead, would it be possible to list Lafayette's full name Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette and maybe provide a brief description of his significance? The remainder of the overview provided in the lead as a whole is sufficient.
• In the article's infobox, Charles E. Barber needn't be wiki-linked twice.
• Under the Background section in the sentence: "He made his way to Philadelphia, where he initially met a cold reception from the Congress." Would "received" work better here, rather than "met?"
• Should French Revolution and Napoleon be wiki-linked under Background? I also suggest wiki-linking "restoration of the monarchy" to Bourbon Restoration. These are merely suggestions.
• In the third paragraph of the Inception section, "Fundraising to build the Lafayette monument was a major component's of the commission's work..." Should this read "component" instead?
• I made several minor tweaks, so please let me know if you disagree with any of these.

I will look through them during the course of the day tomorrow and will be back to you. Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have done as you suggested in all cases. I appreciate the help and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for taking the time to address my comments and suggestions. I've re-reviewed the article, and everything looks good to go! I hereby pass this article for Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Honorary citizen of the US - out by one!

There's now an eighth - Bernardo de Gálvez (July 2014) - Congress document. Not sure what source is best to use. Bencherlite^Talk 12:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, they're passing them out on street corners. Let me look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not actually yet, Obama hasn't signed it. I've bookmarked the page and once he does I will look for news coverage. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

First to depict a US citizen

If this coin is the first to depict a US citizen, is it also the first to depict a real, non-mythological, non-symbolic human? At the time of its coinage, Lafayette, if I am not mistaken, Lafayette was not yet an honorary citizen, so the US citizen depicted was Washington, and this coin is also the first US coin to depict a foreign national. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It does seem an odd way of expressing it - as if previous coins depicted non-US citizens. I would describe it as the first US coin to depict a real historical person (rather than Liberty or an un-named character). I think Lafayette was conferred with honorary citizenship within his lifetime.Mattojgb (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Columbus and Isabella had appeared on coins in 1892-93. Lafayette was a citizen because Connecticut and two or three other states granted him citizenship, for the most part during his 1784 visit. It's discussed in his article. I can explicitly say, drawing on sources from the Lafayette article (because the coin sources don't address this) that he was a US citizen, but I'm trying to finesse the sources. They all focus on Washington but I've come to realize that's only partially right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I am glad that I didn't just "correct" this. Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Horses' Feet

According to the article: "His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death." There's no source given for this business about horses' feet, and since the coin doesn't actually follow the convention described, is it really relevant to the article anyway? Chuntuk (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. I've only heard of the horses' feet rule being applied to statues - in which context it is debunked at http://www.snopes.com/military/statue.asp . Chuntuk (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's in the source at the end of the paragraph. You do not have to include a footnote on every sentence, the one next following in the paragraph is meant to cover it. And it's in there. It's a depiction of an intended statue, after all, though Bartlett eventually altered it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

See Equestrian statue#Hoof-position symbolism myth TomS TDotO (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer on where those "some accounts" may be found, but I still think the sentence about horses' feet is irrelevant to this article. If there were a properly sourced indication that the sculptor/coinmaker intended to pass some information by the configuration of the horse's legs, then it would belong in the article. But (unless we have any information to the contrary) it appears that the sculptor just arranged the horse in a way that looked best to him, and which didn't happen to conform to the convention dreamed up about such things by persons unknown (cf. Snopes article above). I suggest the sentence in question be removed. Chuntuk (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)