Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffalo nickel/archive1

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 Laser brain 04:35, 20 December 2010 [1].

---

Buffalo nickel

Buffalo nickel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Buffalo nickel/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. It's passed GA and had a look at by one or two of our editors who are into numismatics. The fifth in my numismatic series, the Buffalo nickel replaced the rather drab design of the Liberty Head nickel struck for almost thirty years. It probably would have come out in 1912, but the coin was delayed for months by a manufacturer of a device for detecting "slugs", and the government dealt with them with patience I just couldn't imagine today. Though the coin is considered beautiful by many, it had its problems in production, and it was replaced after the minimum 25 years, leaving only the questions: Who is the Indian on the front, and who is the bison on the back? We may never know for sure ...Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I won't support this because I was involved in a very small way in the article. However, for the benefit of reviewers who aren't interested in numismatics, I will say that the article is well done and the offline references are very reliable.-RHM22 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RHM22 is much too modest about his contributions, and for those of you who don't know him, he is one of several up and coming editors who are squeezing me for all I know before moving on to great things here. His article Shooting thaler will soon be a featured list, I am sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met good job Fasach Nua (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Nitpicks

• Ref 14 needs "pp."
• There are no citations to Moran, ergo Further Reading

I have spotchecked using the few online links. Couldn't find the cited text in the Ref 3 link, which I think is a link confirming the document rather than providing text. Otherwise, all checked out. No other sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited text is there, I've modified the link to point directly to the page. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: I have suggested a few minor changes in earlier discussions with the main editor, and these have been adopted. A few other very small points/suggestions:-

• Inception
  • Clarify which device George Reith had invented
  • Suggestion: much of this section is taken up with the Hobbs affair, and I think this should be reflected in the section title. One way would be to subdivide, with a subsection "Hobbs affair" (or similar) comprising the txt after "In July 1912..."
• Release and production
  • Briefly explain here why the designation "Buffalo nickel" is inaccurate. This is covered later, but the wording rather hangs fire without elucidation.
  • "at all three mints": are these previously identified in the article?

Otherwise this a full and clear addition to the excellent US coinage series which is becoming a distictive WP feature. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"' rapidly produced concepts and designs."" - " promptly produced concepts and designs."? (like in response to a request?)

..continued to interpose objections. - "continued to make objections."?

The identity of the Indians whom Fraser used as models is somewhat uncertain - "somewhat" redundant here methinks

From its inception, the coin was referred to as the "Buffalo nickel", despite the use of a bison as a model. this isn't that odd I'd have thought as Americans called bison buffalo...??

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the first three. On the buffalo/bison point, yes that is true, and from our 2010 perspective it looks a bit odd, which is why Coin World and other publications have modified what they call the nickel. There was also discussion of this when the Mint issued nickels as part of the Westward Journey series in 2004 which show a different design of a bison. The point of the discussion is to let the reader know that such controversy did not arise during the nickel's production lifetime (I have letters in my sources from MacVeagh and Roberts which call it a "Buffalo nickel"). Today, we're picky. In 1913, not so much. Thanks for the review, hope the changes are acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I figured as much...I keep thinking of "Bison Bill..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Support I've enjoyed the run of numismatics articles that have been featured lately, and this one is no exception. However, I have a few quibbles before I fully support it:

• In the lead: the word "unappeased" is unclear; do you mean "discomfited" or perhaps "concerned"?
• In "Background", I think the first sentence would read better as "The Liberty head nickel, designed by Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber, was issued in 1883." That's just a stylistic point, not a deal-breaker, but the sentence as it is reads awkwardly.
• In "Release and Production", you mention the "three mints" without explanation, but then a couple of paragraphs later, you mention them again and name them. The names should follow the mints' first mention.
• I think that spelling out "United States" throughout the article, or at least using the more common "U.S.", would be preferable to "US".

--Coemgenus 03:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and I'm glad you are enjoying the coinage series, there are a couple more in the pipeline. I've made the changes you have suggested. I have changed "unappeased" to "not satisfied", which perhaps explains the case better.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Good luck! Coemgenus 18:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your good words. Well, three supports, no opposes, image check done, source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.