Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Draped Bust dollar/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 SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].

Draped Bust dollar edit

Featured article candidates/Draped Bust dollar/archive1

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The Draped Bust dollar was the second silver dollar struck by the United States Mint, and as such it remains relatively obscure among collectors. It's not the first, and not the most interesting or most controversial, but it is nonetheless a surprisingly fun coin to read about and research. The Draped Bust dollar began mintage in the same illegal standard as its predecessor, the Flowing Hair dollar, but this was changed when the United States Mint hired a new director, Elias Boudinot, who was known for his honesty. Though the bulk of the series is largely ignored, one date, 1804, is widely considered the king of American coins. Selling for record prices almost since they were created, the 1804 dollar was actually first minted in the 1830s. I hope that this article will provide the reader with something interesting, and I thank everyone for any comments or reviews!-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

References in columns please?
Location for Whittmore? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've fixed the references, but I can't add a location for the Whittmore book because the publisher doesn't give one. It's probably New York City, but I don't want to put that in there because I'm not sure.-RHM22 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat agrees with you, so the location can be listed as "[New York]"; the brackets imply that while the location is not given in the source, the city is likely due to the publisher, printer, and/or distributor. According to the site, there's also no "The" at the beginning of the publisher name. María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maria! I fixed that now.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

It says "alloy of .900 silver", "alloy of .892 silver and .108 copper" and similar. Those terms are esoteric and obscure for many readers. Would it be possible to include percentages that are more plain English?
It says "numismatic". Many people won't know what that means. I see the term is linked but it's the last time it's used. You may wish to link it on the first instance instead.

Lightmouse (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I have fixed both of those things. For the esoteric wording, I have changed a few of the uses of "alloy" and reworded the rest to help readers better understand the meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. It uses 'percent' and '%'. I suggest you use the '%' throughout although if you prefer 'percent' use that throughout. Sometimes it has a space, sometimes it doesn't. The MOS says it should be unspaced. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Percentages.

Also I think the instances of 'or' inside parentheses indicating conversions could be removed.

Lightmouse (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lightmouse! I've fixed those things. I apologize for not making the percent/% consistent. I tried to get them all, but I missed a few.-RHM22 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"nineteenth century, eighteenth century": Fine by me, but not by WP:MOSNUM. "19th century".
"illegal fineness of .900 (90%) silver.": This would work better as the first sentence of the second paragraph, either alongside or merged with the other sentence that deals with the same subject. Also, here and in the first section, "illegal" is technically correct, but I'd go with "unapproved" I think.
"temporarily started": temporarily restarted
"consisting 89.2% silver": + "of"
"an artistic drudge who could carry out most painting or sculptural tasks for a client": not sure what this means.

This means that he would carry out various artistic works upon request for a fee. I expect that would have included a number of portraits and probably various monuments as well, though that's just speculation. Either way, I have added an explanation and replaced the assertion with a direct quote.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of this is still not working for me. Anyone have an opinion on this? "... described by a contemporary artist as a "thorough-going drudge" due to his willingness to carry out most painting or sculptural tasks at the request of clients." I carry out copyediting duties at the request of writers; does that make me a drudge? (Wait, don't answer that). - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"believed ... to have designed the eagle and was paid thirty dollars for his work." Was it believed or known that he was paid thirty dollars for his work? If believed, the two elements should be parallel ("to have been paid").

I removed the part about him designing it. I really don't see any indication of that, since he had already been sent sketches and was probably pretty accurate to those.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"local artistic hack": if you're saying he wasn't very good, then possibly: dismissed him as a "local artistic hack".
That's the lead and first section. Please have a look at the rest, or have someone have a look at the rest, for similar problems. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I have addressed all of those, and I went over the article a couple of times and fixed a few other things as well.-RHM22 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. ".892 fineness": Lightmouse talks about this above.
"unbeknownst" isn't wrong, but it's controversial.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've got 15 edits, but the toolserver is currently reporting only 3. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I changed "unbeknownst" to "unknown". I've always used it, but I understand that it is somewhat archaic. Sorry about the ".892" thing. I thought I changed all of those, but I must have missed one of them. As for the agreement thing that you fixed (thanks for the copyedit by the way), I thought it a little funny that I accidentally wrote that an agreement was reached with the bullion! Still, bullion isn't entirely disagreeable, as it has both a "silver tongue" and a "heart of gold"!-RHM22 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sense of humor will be one of your most important assets as a writer. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Henry_William_DeSaussure.JPG - on what page in the source does this image appear?
File:1804dollar.JPG, same as above
File:EliasBoudinot.jpg - source link is broken, no publication date given on image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review! Sorry about leaving the page numbers out. I'll be sure to include that in further FACs. The 1804 dollar image is actually not a page number, but rather a plate number. As for the Boudinot image, that delightful portrait was created in 1817 by Thomas Sully. I've added the correct information in that respect (author, year), but the old link is still there. Should I remove the link and find a current website that has the image, or just leave it there and accept that the image was once at that link in good faith? Sorry for my ignorance here – I've never encountered old links that I can remember.-RHM22 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found an older version on the Internet Archive, but the portrait isn't visible there.-RHM22 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the archiveurl would be better than nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I'll add that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It took some searching, but I found a link with the painting on the Internet Archive! I've added it.-RHM22 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks needs legacy or impact section to show why it's significantrm2dance (talk)

Hm. Do coin articles typically have a Legacy section? - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually, except under special circumstances, such as if a coin is most famous for something other than just being a coin. A good example would be the 1933 double eagle, which is most famous for being a great rarity, or the so-called "Widow's Mite" (most likely a lepton), which is by far most famous for being mentioned in a Biblical verse.-RHM22 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in general. I can't speak to comprehensiveness and there are a couple of thing I don;t understand (other than why someone would apy 4 million dollars for a coin!):

What does with the date of 1804 mean?
Isn't the American Secretary of State concerned with foreign policy? If that's the case, why would they have power over the US Mint? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! "With the date of 1804" means that though the coins were struck throughout the nineteenth century, they were dated 1804. That does sound confusing though, so I'll reword all uses of that phrase now. As for the Secretary of State thing, I couldn't really tell you why he was involved. Back then, coinage was a lot more important than it is now, so that may be why he was concerned. I believe that the Secretary of State has power over most governmental agencies.-RHM22 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Comments, a few quibbles before I can support:[reply]

"The Mint was closed between August and November 1797 due to annual epidemics of yellow fever in Philadelphia;" - This reads oddly to me, because the Mint was not closed in this particular year due to multiple epidemics, but instead due to the annual yf epidemic. Perhaps "...due to the annual yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia;" or something similar?
"many of the silver dollars produced by the Mint were being shipped to China and not returned to the United States." Why?
"following complaints from the public and members of Congress," - Complaints about what?
"In 1867, one of the original 1804 dollars was sold at auction for $750.[28] Seven years later, on November 27, 1874, a specimen sold for $700" - Would it be possible to add what these amounts ($750/700) would be worth today? I'm assuming a lot, but have no basis for comparison.
In conducting a spotcheck (of the one ref I can access!), I found that I cannot find the given information supported by ref #10 (Whittmore) on the noted page (page 80). Perhaps I am missing something?

Once these issues are taken care of, I shall be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I fixed all of them except for the last one. The section about de Saussure is on page 80, but I think there are actually multiple pages numbered 80 in the book, if you know what I mean. I'm not sure why it's like that, but if you search within the book for "de Saussure" it shows the quote as well as the picture on the a page numbered 80. However, when you use the box at the top to quickly go to page 80, there's something else on it. I'm not sure exactly why that is.-RHM22 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, weird. You are quite correct. Anyway, the information is backed up in the source, on a page 80, if not the page 80. Anyway, everything else looks good, so changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support made a number of comments and suggestions along the way and helped out a bit on sourcing. Well worth the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 1 June 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.