Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Two-cent piece (United States coin)/archive1

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 Ian Rose 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Two-cent piece (United States coin)

[edit]

Two-cent piece (United States coin) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about… a rather obscure coin that only made it for nine years, the second-shortest life of any US denomination. However, the two cent piece started by helping to reintroduce federal coinage after the economic turmoil of the American Civil War. And if Thaddeus Stevens plays a role, it can't be all bad. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

[edit]

Nice article, leaning support. Feel free to disagree with anything I leave here.

Lead
[edit]
  • "Mint Act of 1873" redirects to Coinage Act of 1873, which doesn't actually list "Mint Act" as a synonym. Should this or the other article be fixed?
It probably should, and I will adjust that article. Sources use varied terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even the non-silver cent,": would it be better to link this as Indian Head cent? Otherwise it looks like a link to the more general "cent"
  • "Nevertheless, two-cent pieces remain inexpensive by the standards of 19th-century American coinage.": I assume this means inexpensive as collectible items?
If that mintage of 65,000 for the 1872 was for the Indian Head cent, which is much more widely collected, it would be much higher priced.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
[edit]
  • "coins should contain their value in metal": is there something good to link to here?
I can't think of any offhand that deal specifically with this, although it is mentioned in a fair number of numismatic articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nickel as a coinage medal": not "metal"? If not, could we layreaders get an explanation?
Typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to numismatist Neil Carothers": link "numismatist"?
Legislation
[edit]
  • "up to ten times their values": meaning ten times the value of the metal in them?
The cent was legal tender to ten cents; the two-cent piece was legal tender to twenty cents. I've played with it, but I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So with a two-cent coin you could buy 20 cents worth of goods? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you needed ten of them, but yes, it was good for that and would have to be taken, at least in theory, though the importance of legal tender was for government taxes and tariffs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm sure I seem particularly dim here. I'm reading this now as that the government would redeem the coins, but put a cap on the number they would redeem, right? Maybe rewording/combining "both the cent and two-cent piece were acceptable to ten times their respective face values.[15] The government would not, however, redeem them in quantity.[16]" would make this clearer if that's the case? The way it reads now is that individual coins were worth up to ten times their face value. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a different angle. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal clear now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wharton and his interests would be appeased": or "were appeased"?
Design
[edit]
  • "the Rev. M.R. Watkinson": could we heathens have "Reverend" spelled out?
  • "had written to Chase,": or "wrote"?
The narrative is moving back in time, thus the usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In heraldic engraving": worth a link to heraldry?
I think hatching system a better pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Production and collecting
[edit]
Image check
[edit]
  • All images are properly tagged.
  • File:1836 pattern 2c.jpg is causing sandwiching—and given that it's not very clear, is it necessary to include it?
  • Alt text would be nice
I understand, but as my alt text tends to get objected to, I would rather leave that to the willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Except as noted above, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, for the Centurion's work on another great article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Can we get an OCLC number for the Bureau of the Mint pub?
  • Shouldn't all article titles be in title case?
    • For the sake of consistency. Examples would be Freeman, Green, Kay, LaMarre, etc. I understand that you just followed the publisher's practices, but the shocking decline in grammatical understanding in the last few decades shouldn't affect us. I blame the major cite styles as they don't use title case hardly at all. But I guess I'm just standing on my porch, yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.
You mean examples of title case or examples of needing to be converted to title case?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Examples needing to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Do you read MOS:CT as covering short works like articles? Because my understanding was that titles of articles in periodicals were not to be in title case.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they count as "other works". After all, they're just as much creative work as a book, only differing in the length and amount of effort to write.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how about ISSNs for the journals?
    • No, not a formal requirement, as far as I could discover, but I've gotten in the habit of adding them when available.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got the OCLC number. I'm not certain which article title is noncompliant. If you mean the website titles, I tend to reproduce them exactly. As for ISSN, that's a new one on me. Is this now standard? While I'm aware you can search WorldCat by ISSN, it seems only marginally useful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten everything now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • The headings "Bibliography" and "Other sources" are slightly confusing, since a bibliography is a list of all sources, not just books. You could merge the two lists under the "Bibliography" heading, or use "Books" and "Other sources" as subheadings under "Bibliography"
  • Page range formats should be standardised (see ref 5 v. ref 6, for example)

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. (General review to follow) Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few prose quibbles:

  • "A two-cent piece was, according to numismatist Neil Carothers, most likely proposed to get as much dollar value in small change issued in as short a time as possible, as the Mint could strike a two-cent piece as easily as a cent." I have problems understanding what is meant here. I don't think the interpolation helps - perhaps begin the sentence "According to..." etc. But even so I'm struggling.
  • "The domestic supply of nickel was then produced by a mine..." I think "at that time" rather than "then", otherwise the sentence reads ambiguously.
  • "...a select committee of the House of Representatives endorsed the Pollock bill." What was the "Pollock bill"? (no previous mention as such)
  • In the final paragraph of the "Legislation", the terms "the act" and "the bill" are both used. Are they referring to the same thing? My assumption is that a bill becomes an act when it passes into law.
  • Production and collecting section: Too much "according to..." – three times in the third paragraph
  • "With the advent of the Grant administration, Pollock returned to office" – there is no mention of his leaving office.
  • "Pursuant to the authority" seems slightly stilted language, and it's not immediately clear what "authority" refers to.
  • (Aside): bearing in mind the long-term impact of his modest request that a reference to God be placed on the coinage in times of war, I am surprised that the Revd Watkinson isn't better known (no WP article!)
I am surprised to and may do a bit of research.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the source review. I'll run through these tonight or in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all those things, other than researching the Reverend Watkinson, who will have my attention next time I'm at the ANA library, which may be late this winter or early this spring. I'm not aware of any impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2013 (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/Two-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)/archive1&oldid=589118596"