Talk:Liberty Head nickel

Circulation Status

What are the number of these coins still in circulation? I got one in my change last year and a buffalo nickel in my change today.Boothferry (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Circulation Status

I have no idea, but it's not very many. Due to the recession, lots of old coins are being spent. Of course, exact numbers left in circulation would be impossible to know for sure. RHM22 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

• Comment: One issue I see after a brief review is that the opening mentions the 1913 five coin issue twice. I suggest it only be raised once in the opening. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened the first mention. I think that there is a need to mention it in connection with the timeframe, and then mention the numismatic 1913 aspect. It would be tough to bring them together. BTW, I am aware we don't have an image of a "NO CENTS" nickel, I'm working on that and hope to have one by Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Images taken care of. Not the best condition on the coins, but as I paid for them, they will have to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

General Comments: These are comments that arise as I read through the article. Some of them have to do with language; I'm not comfortable enough with my own writing as to actually attempt any copyediting, so I rather leave it up to you to decide whether my comment is sensible or not. The following comments have little bearing on the GA review.

• "It was struck for circulation from 1883 until 1912" → "It was circulated between 1883 and 1912" Not that big of the deal, but perhaps the original version has some redundancy ("struck for circulation" versus "circulated").
• "...at least five pieces were surreptitiously struck dated 1913." → What do you mean by "surreptitiously struck"? Unauthorized? Admittedly, it might be because I don't know the word very well (I had to look it up), so it's difficult for me to put into the context of the sentence.
• I didn't find it clear that the second paragraph of the lead was referring to the Liberty Head nickel. As such, I think the following change would be positive: "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883." → "Only the new five-cent piece was approved, and went into production in 1883 as the Liberty Head nickle." (Or, something similar, at least.)
• "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, and a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, went into production in February 1913." → I think this would be clearer as follows, "Beginning in 1911, the Mint began work to replace the Liberty head design, with a new design, which became known as the Buffalo nickel, which went into production in February 1913."
• "Well-known sculptor James Earle Fraser approached Treasury officials, who were impressed with his work." → Were they impressed with his work before he approached them, or after? This sentence seems to suggest the former, but I am just making sure.
• The table at the end is sort of awkward, largely because it hurts the article aesthetically. I think the table would look nicer if it was designed with six columns, instead of two (or nine, instead of three; or maybe seven, since only two years have marks).

Now, for the review;

1. Well-written: The language is clear and concise, and the article follows the manual of style.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Citations and references look good.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes.
4. Neutral: Yes (no random insertions of, "man, this nickle sucks!")
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated: Yes, and the image tags are all legitimate.

Therefore, I see no reason this should not pass as a good article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (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.

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty Head nickel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209104123/http://www.coinresource.com/guide/photograde/pg_05cLibertyHeadNickel.htm to http://www.coinresource.com/guide/photograde/pg_05cLibertyHeadNickel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty Head nickel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013544/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2010/01/10/240146/Rare-US.htm to http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2010/01/10/240146/Rare-US.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)