Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gobrecht dollar/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 03:12, 23 August 2011 [1].

Gobrecht dollar

[edit]

Gobrecht dollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I had previously nominated this article, but it was pointed out that it had more flaws than I first believed. Now, Wehwalt and myself have (hopefully) improved the article enough to meet the standards of the FAC process. The Gobrecht dollar, minted from 1836 to 1839, was the first dollar coin minted in any quantity since the denomination was unofficially discontinued in 1804 and officially in 1806. The coin, though known as the Gobrecht dollar, might be more accurately referred to as the "flying eagle dollar", as its namesake was involved only in the engraving of the dies and slight modification of the designs. The basis for the design was a seated Liberty figure created by great early American artists Thomas Sully and a soaring eagle created by another prominent artist, Titian Peale, son of Rembrandt Peale, an artist responsible for the creation of many portraits of the American Founding Fathers. The Gobrecht dollar was minted as a test to determine whether or not a circulating silver dollar would prove favorable with the American public. Evidently, it did, as the denomination continued steady production until 1873. These coins continued to utilize Sully's seated Liberty, but the soaring eagle was rejected for a more heraldic creation after 1840. Peale's design was not forgotten, however, as it too continued to live on, albeit briefly, on the Flying Eagle cent, minted from 1856 to 1858. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry about those two! I believe Wehwalt inserted the Lange reference, and I think he probably meant to write Taxay. I'll check with him and make sure though before I change it. The other problem has been tended to, but I'm not sure how well. I don't know which publisher compiled these laws, so I can't put that in there. I did put the page number that contains the relevant information, but it looks a little odd without a publisher, since it was almost certainly part of a large bound volume.-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the Lange thing is also fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've fixed that. The second "Sully" was supposed to be "Peale". Nice catch!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • The lead images (of the coins) may not be in the public domain. Because the book was published in 1913 it was not published before 1913, the {{PD-US}} template is incorrect. Someone with slightly more copyright knowledge than I would have to tell you how to proceed. Until this is resolved, however, this nomination most certainly can't be closed as successful. Edit 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC): I would like to have this straightened out, but per my response below, I don't think at this point that it's a big enough issue to crash the candidacy. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The quality on File:RobertMPatterson.jpg is awful. It's like that at the source, so it's not our fault, but it still is the degree of bad quality that bears mentioning here. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the quality is low for this image. I don't have any others copies available currently, though, so do you think I should remove it and replace it with a different image? I have images of other people that were important in the history of the coin, so there won't be a problem finding a replacement for the Patterson image.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are of equal importance to Patterson, then yes I would. Maybe it's just because I'm an image gnome, but I kept getting drawn back to that image while I was trying to concentrate on other things on that page, and I wasn't getting drawn back for the right reasons. I felt like a [Rubbernecking|rubbernecker]. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll see if I can find an archive link.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's fixed. Turns out it was just an old URL, so I didn't need to use the Archive. Thanks for the image review!-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the crucial date is 1923, unless I am missing something here?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright being the monster that it is, a photograph of an object is copyrighted separately from the object itself. In further consideration, however, I would have to say this is a non-issue, as the photograph does not meet any reasonable threshold of originality/creativity, which the U.S. requires for copyright. If my reading of the laws is correct, we could still get hit with a cease and desist notice, although the odds of that are incredibly low, however that notice could be defeated by an inebriated first year associate. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added fresh images of a Gobrecht dollar. How is that? I should add that I am currently doing research at the ANA library and I carefully went through the stacks looking for auction catalogs that were US-published before 1978 with color plates and no copyright notice. I found three. The images were from one of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I called my lawyer and she said that I was in fact correct about the threshold or originality thing, however since it was in a larger document, she would have to see the document itself in order to give a definitive answer. However if you've gotten around the problem by getting another version, then it's all good anyways. Lemme take a quick look at the new stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. As with the wire rim from the Indian Head dollar, iff there really isn't a notice, we're all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no notice. I went through a fair number of auction catalogs and similar material, as soon as I saw an copyright marking I put it back on the shelves. I've done this at several archives and know what I am doing. The books are at the ANA library, anyone free to check or to call the librarian there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't interpret my comments as questioning my integrity, I intended no such thing, sorry if it came across that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I seem to have taken a little-used loophole on Wiki and run with it, as has RHM22. Actually, the more times this is discussed and upheld the easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commments:

  • In general, the article seems to over-cite, using the same reference sentence after sentence. This can be trimmed back considerably.
I removed a few that seemed mostly unnecessary, but most of the references are still cited multiple times. I'll fix this by referencing a book that Wehwalt has provided me access to a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a little bit of over-citing, particularly in the last paragraph of the "Design" section (#9 & 10) and in the "Restrikes" (#21) section. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mass and diameter are given in the infobox, but not covered (or cited) in the article.
I cited the mass in the article and reworked it a little in the infobox, but I removed the diameter entirely, because it seems to fluctuate based on the source, so I can't find an exact number.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where you put the mass, I don't think you need to link "grams", and the second mass should have units (g) behind it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there a stated reason why the 1804 dollars were being exported to the Orient (and later back to the U.S.)?
The 1804 dollars weren't really exported to the Orient (even though they were given as gifts there!), but rather the standard issue silver dollars. I have reworded to clear that up.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After examining Mint records, officials incorrectly concluded that the last Draped Bust dollars minted were dated 1804, so that date was chosen for the new coins." ... I'm sorry, I'm not following the meaning or significance of the last half of that sentence.
Since no 1804 dollars had been struck since 1804 (they were dated 1803, but they didn't know that), they chose to use that date on the coins struck in 1835. It's not known why that was done, but certain numismatists have theorized that Mint officials didn't want to create only a few coins with a certain date because collectors would want them, and very few would be struck. I guess they were not successful with that, because the 1804 dollar is one of the most valuable and famous of all coins!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They did get the date right in restriking the $10 piece, also not struck since 1804, but 1804-dated pieces had been struck at the time. However, they got the way the number 4 lookednwrong, see Turban Head eagle#1804 issues, creating an even greater rarity than the 1804 dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm getting hung up on here is that I'm not familiar with the 1804 dollar and the Draped Bust dollars, and I keep thinking your leading into something on the Gobrecht dollar... Can you see it that way? If not, I'll try reading it again tomorrow to see if I'm just being a bit slower than normal. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...both Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury, President Jackson and his cabinet approved of the design." The word "both" usually indicates two people or things, not several.
  • "An act of January 18, 1837 officially changed the legal standard for silver coins from 89.2% to 90% silver." – The source mentions that coins should be 90% silver, but does not document the change from 89.2% from what I could see. What source gave 89.2%? I'm assuming the Yeoman ref?
  • I'm a little unclear about how this dollar transitioned into the Seated Liberty dollar. Can that be clarified? The way it's worded almost makes the Gobrecht dollar sound like a test run.
It was a sort of test run. That's why they were minted in such small numbers. Should I try to expand on that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you should be more clear about this. I'm not a big coin collector, particularly of coins this old, so I come into this article thinking this was a common circulating coin, but gradually learn that it was more of a test-run for a future coin. I think it needs to be stated a little more explicitly, particularly in the lead and somewhere near the top of the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking the first use of "numismatic".
  • "Following an increase in numismatic pursuits among the public in the mid-19th century..." – I'm assuming that means an increased interest in coin collecting? If so, I recommend just saying that.
  • Your page range for Adams & Woodin should be 9–10, not just 10.
  • Some of the following information from Adams & Woodin seems to be omitted from the article: "It is said that but eighteen of the coins with the name in the field were struck in silver, while 1,000 were made bearing the name on the base. These figures apply to the coin with the twenty-six stars surrounding the flying eagle on the reverse. The same obverse as the foregoing, but with the eagle flying in the plain field on the reverse, is excessively rare."
I'm not sure about this. I'll look into it a little later and see what else I can add.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it, and as expected, those pieces were patterns. There were several different types of patterns produced throughout the tenure of the Gobrecht dollar, and there would be too many to list each type individually. I could certainly add something about them if you think it would be a good idea, though.-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of comprehensiveness, yes, I would at least discuss them. When I write about lemurs or any other species, I often have to go into gory detail about coloration patters (which can vary widely) for the same reasons. Although you don't need to outline every pattern, you should at least document that they exist and give a general overview. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References: I checked the Adams & Woodin online source, verifying the facts and that no plagiarism has occurred. I could not check the offline sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sorry for my delay in responding. I had some business to take care of, and it took longer than expected. Anyway, I have attempted to fix all of the issues you've raised excepting a couple, which I have elaborated on above. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking into the patterns, but I'll add something about them as soon as I can find some good sources for that information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • 1804 dollar: "The rationale for discontinuing the denomination was that many of the coins produced since the denomination was first struck...". Little redundancy here with multiple "denomination"s. Could change the second one to "it", or do any number of other things.
  • Design: "began preparations for a series of silver dollar which, unlike the 1804 dollar, were intended...". First, should "dollar" be plural?
  • "to assume the position. Shortly after assuming the position...". More repetitiveness here.
  • "in order" can safely be chopped from "be hired immediately in order to fulfill the duties of engraver".
  • "to" missing from "in an effort gain their approval."
  • What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of this section?
  • Production: "Gobrecht dollars struck prior the act...". Add "to" after "prior" or change "prior" to "before". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, and again, I apologize for my delay. I fixed all of the points you brought up except for the bit about sourcing. The reason that the last sentence of the design section is unsourced is because I removed some of the over-citing. If you think it necessary, I can certainly restore the reference to that sentence. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If ref 11 is what is intended to source that bit, you could just move the last citation of the section back a sentence. That would sufficiently cover both sentences, if it indeed is the source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments-

  • One of the same comments I made last time: Under "1804 dollar", the first two sentences could probably be combined and the word "officially" is superfluous.
  • In the second paragraph in that section: is it possible to make that active voice? It sounds awkward as is.
  • In that same paragraph, in the second-to-last sentence, the words "over the fact" can be removed without changing the sentence's meaning.
  • In the last sentence there, "amount" should probably be "number".
  • In the second paragraph in "Design", "which would be carried out by Peale:" --> "which Peale would carry out:" or maybe "which Peale would execute:"
  • In the second paragraph in "Production", the semi-colon and "this is because" --> a comma and "because", or maybe a comma and "as".
  • That's it. I think the article has improved since last time I read it. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I've fixed everything here except your first and second points. On the first, I combined the sentences, but I didn't remove "officially", because the denomination was unofficially halted in 1804 before it was done officially in 1806. I did reword the sentence to make it a little clearer. As for the second point, I think I fixed it, but I'm not really sure what active voice is.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that "No action was taken until the summer of 1834..." should read "[Someone] took no action until the summer of 1834..." Passive voice leaves the reader in doubt over the identity of that someone who took no action. I get what you're saying about "officially", so I struck that comment. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits; please see the edit summaries. A few spots that don't read as smoothly as they could, maybe someone will have a suggestion what to do. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "numismatic historian R.W. Julian suggests the coins were postdated to prevent coin collectors from becoming angered over the fact that they would be unable to obtain the newly dated coins, which would be struck in very small numbers."
  • "According to a common story, the flying eagle seen on the Gobrecht dollar was modeled after Peter, the Mint's pet eagle, who, after his untimely death by becoming caught in the Mint's machinery, was stuffed and remains on view at the Mint to this day."
  • "were the coin held face up, with the obverse facing toward the viewer, and rotated on its horizontal axis, the reverse design would also face upward.": I went with "the image was upside-down on the reverse." - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank, for the copyedit and support. Everything looks great except for bit about medal alignment, as that means that both images face upward when rotated. This always proves difficult, because I can't find a good way to explain it. To demonstrate, assume that this is the obverse of the coins: /\ normally, when U.S. coins are rotated this way: > or this way: < , the other side (reverse) looks like this: \/ . This is commonly called 'coin alignment'. The opposite of that, when both sides are the same (/\ and /\) is known as 'medal alignment', because most medals created in the United States use that orientation. It's extremely hard to explain without a photograph or something that demonstrates it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I had too few words, you had too many. Can you do something shorter? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I can't think of any good way to word it. I'd remove that information entirely if it wasn't so important to the article. I'll try to rework it to make it a little more concise.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At the moment i would have to oppose, though it can be ammended to lead me to support. The article as it currently stands leads the reader to assume that there were 600 coins struck dated as 1838. This simply isnt so. The only coins dated as 1838 were a few pattern pieces and restrikes of those patterns. The 600 coins that the article refers to were the same type as the 1838 patterns, yet were struck dated as 1839. The article also fails to mention the important fact that the original 1836 issue of dollars was the only American coin issue to be issued as a proof into general circulation, no other american coin has been issued for general circulation as a proof. See [[2]] and any current red book issue for more details.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the 1838 issue. I believe I had the correct date in there, but it was changed while I was reworking the article. At any rate, it's fixed now. As for the other issue, I was aware of it, but I decided not to include it because it didn't seem particularly relevant. Also, the "for" or "not for circulation" issue has long been contentious among numismatics. Many still consider the Gobrecht dollar to be a pattern, even though it's well documented that it was meant as a trial run. Still, I would be hesitant to include any information about it being the only regular issue proof coin, because some might argue that the 1856 Flying Eagle cent and the various gold stellas were also regular issues, even though I would personally disagree.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but there is a distinct difference between issues like the 56cent/stellas and the gobrecht dollars. The stellas and 56 cents were never released directly into general circulation, they were patterns with large mintages that were disseminated into public hands in an irregular form (given to congressmen/sold to collectors at higher than face value). The first issue of Gobrecht dollars was released into circulation as any other circulating coin would be, they were disperesed through banks and saw circulation as regular coins. The stellas and 56 cents were never intended to circulate as money (though a few 56 cents seem to have circulated anyway when spent by people ignorant of their rarity) while the 1836 issue of dollars were specifically made to circulate as money.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I came across this while looking at my own FAC, and I couldn't believe how much info you had for a coin that lasted four years over 150 years ago. However, I have some issues before this passes.

It is a little surprising, but I have read others who do write-ups on obscure 15th century medals that are pages long! I have no idea how much effort it must take to find so much information on things like that.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it weird in the background section that you refer eastern Asia as "the Orient". I understand that's what it was called back then, but it feels a bit stuck in time.
This is something that came up a little while ago while Trade dollar (United States coin) was on the main page. On there, it was changed to "Eastern Asia", so I did the same here.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1806, Secretary of State James Madison" - going with the above, I think it should be something like "then-Secretary", as many more people know Madison as a president than SoS.
  • "well received" should be "well-received"
  • Why did Moore resign?
This I don't know. The source I used doesn't really go into any more detail, and I haven't found any online sources for that information either.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numismatic" - what's that? Either link or explain please
I have the first use of that word linked.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you cut down on the quotes in the "Design" section?
I removed some from the quote about the reverse eagle, but I don't think it a good idea to remove any from the obverse quote, since everything he is saying is important; the Gobrecht dollar was the first federal United States coin to depict a seated figure, and I believe that the quote shows the designing process.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I more meant converting the quote into prose. It's great seeing quotes, but if they are merely describing something, one can just describe that as well in their own words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In August, Patterson sent a uniface striking of the reverse die to President Jackson, who approved designs for both sides of the coin." - that is unsourced
The reason for that is because I was asked above to remove some sourcing. I can certainly replace it if you think it necessary, though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, every single sentence in the article should be sourced (using the standard sourcing method, meaning that no section should end without a citation). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't I see the "Gobrecht" on the coin in the image of the Infobox?
That is because the infobox coin is an 1838 Gobrecht dollar, which was minted in very small numbers and is generally considered a pattern. The name would normally have been situated below the Liberty figure, but that was not done during the small 1838 production.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a 1836 now, here, please feel free to substitute.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love if that was in, given that it has the "Gobrecht" on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are technically patterns" - what does that mean? You never mention patterns elsewhere in the article
  • "Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), and those struck after 26.73 g." - the second portion doesn't really read well. Try adding another word or two
  • "Persistent demand for the new coins prompted Woodbury to contact Patterson to request more to satisfy demand for the silver dollars" - there are some redundancies there ("persistent demand... to satisfy demand"). I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sentence
  • "though it is widely believed " - by whom?
  • "designer of the cent" - which cent? The modern penny?
That referred to the Flying Eagle Cent mentioned earlier. I have reworded that section.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My biggest concern is that there are only 7 sources for the article. I suppose I'm also a bit worried that 6 of them are book sources. Given that two books were written in the internet era, I'm worried you may be missing some contemporary online sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I have fixed all of the points you've raised, except for the few that I have commented on above. As for the referencing, Wehwalt has been kind enough to supply me with some extra material, and I'll introduce some of that information into the article. I would have done it earlier, but I'm moving slow as molasses!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I gave some responses and struck out the ones I was satisfied with. Be sure to let me know when you add some more sourcing. I understand about moving slowly though. I have my own FAC I'm dealing with! (any reviews there would be great) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment, the author William H. Woodin, cited with the pattern books, should receive a link in the references, he is unquestionably notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for the switch to oppose? There is already one oppose, the delegate will not pass it without the issues being addressed. I do not think RHM22 is wilfully ignoring you; I'm actually a bit worried about it. Opposes are good to let noms know to get on the ball, but he simply appears not to be on Wikipedia. If the weekend passes, I will email him. I got some pretty good images of Gobrecht dollars, including a couple struck in copper, at the ANA convention in Chicago, that might spice up the aritcle, if it is a help for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the fact that he isn't on Wikipedia is the main reason for my switch. It appears there is no one running the ship here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's why Sandy isn't archiving this. She's giving him a chance to come back. If this is still open middle of next week, I will do my best, but right now my FAC attention is fully on my own article and I am reluctant to take on other commitments until that clears. The thing is, I only have one "book" (images of a book I photographed last month and sent to RHM22) with me. Gobrecht dollars are not my field, but I'll do my best. Let's see what happens between now and then. I take it if the matters you have mentioned are cleared up, you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, of course :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the long absence. I've been working in a place where I have no internet access. I believe that I've addressed all of your issues except the sourcing, which I will fix as soon as I have the chance. Thanks to Wehwalt for all your help and to Hink for understanding.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, there's a problem with ref#7. Check the bottom of the refs section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After Chief Engraver William Kneass's stroke" - would suggest rephrasing as "had a stroke". If your phrasing is kept, be consistent in whether you use "Kneass's" or "Kneass' "
  • Wikilink dies in lead?
  • "Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), while those struck later weighed 26.73 g" - is it worth converting those values?
  • "by whom" tag should be addressed
  • Be consistent in whether you use "mid-19th" or "mid-nineteenth". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've fixed all your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (a deeper source check was not done). GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gobrecht_dollar/archive2&oldid=1089084943"