Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lafayette dollar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 via FACBot (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lafayette dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin where it is perhaps fortunate that the engraver did not have to inscribe the subject's full name. The usual tale of a poor design and worse sales, with bit appearances from some of the Gay Nineties people from my political articles.Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've dealt with these matters. Thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:

  • Of the 43 footnotes, all but two are shortened. The article from The New York Times hasn't been shortened, which is understandable since it isn't a book like the others, but footnote 32 is citing a book. I think that should be shortened like the other books for consistency. (Also, you might want to add |via=Google Books to the full citation for that source, and any others where it would be appropriate, to indicate that the online copy is hosted there.)
  • You may want to enclose the list of books below the footnotes with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} so that the text size and other formatting matches up with the list generated by {{reflist}}
  • You many want to consider adding |lastauthoramp=yes to the full Swiatek & Breen and citation so that it uses the ampersand in front of the last author in the list. That way it would render the authors of that source "Swiatek, Anthony & Breen, Walter".
  • It would be nice if ISBNs or OCLC numbers were added where possible. For example, based on the Google Books information for the Adams book, the OCLC for that source is OCLC 191237505.
  • You may want to tweak the Peck source to use |volume=vol. 1; once the value for |volume= expands like that, the boldfacing is dropped. Also, it makes it clearer that the "I" is in fact a volume number.
  • You may also want to change the Slabaugh citation to use |edition=2nd since I think that's more commonly rendered with the numeral than spelled out.
  • Corporate designations like "Inc", "LLC" and even "Company" are typically omitted from the names of publishers in citations. The fact that Whitman Publishing was division of Western Publishing in 1975 is also pretty superfluous to the goal of a good citation: enabling a reader to locate a copy of the source to consult.

All of the above are offered as thoughts to improve on the consistency in formatting the sources used. In general, I find the sources used to be of the standard expected for a Featured Article (high-quality reliable sources). Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those. I have gotten most, I think. I'm going to stay pedantic and keep with the LLC and all that. Your comment on the Slabaugh book (Whitman/Western), it was raised in a source review on another FAC as the ISBN (as I recall) was recorded as for Western, so in an excess of caution I'm going to keep that status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have done something of a peer review here, so quite a few comments but nothing of huge significance:

Lead
  • "it was the only US commemorative prior to 1983 to be a silver dollar" → "it was the only US silver dollar commemorative prior to 1983"
  • "valued at several hundred dollars to tens of thousands" – the "at" should be "from" (idiom is from–to not at–to)
These two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • I don't think it's necessary to trundle out Lafayette's multiple names here – there's a linked article which readers can consult for this information. Is there any reason why the first two short paras shouldn't be combined?
  • Second para: "suggested" → "suggests" (and perhaps throughout)?
  • "King Louis XVI ordered that he not go on the demand of the British ambassador." Somewhat clumsy, and vaguely ambiguous. I suggest "...on the demand of the British ambassador, King Louis XVI ordered him not to go."
  • "The marquis escaped through disguise as a courier": Is "escaped" the right word? Presumably he wasn't being held captive. I'd prefer: "The marquis got away, disguised as a courier"
  • "The reasons for this included that the 19-year-old sought no pay from the nascent nation, and also Congress received a letter from American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential." Maybe 1775 is a little early for "nascent" (i.e. new-born), a year before the Declaration of Independence? Otherwise, the sentence does not parse well at the moment. Perhaps: "The reasons for this included the 19-year-old's refusal to accept pay from the nascent nation, and also that Congress had received a letter from Benjamin Franklin, American envoy to France, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential."
At this point we are discussing 1777. I'll play with your wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that Cornwallis was the British commander at Yorktown (not everyone knows this)
  • The sentence that ends the section needs attribution.
  • Generally – I found this section somewhat overdetailed, diverting focus from the coin. The importance of Lafayette in US history, and thus the justification for the commemorative coin, could be summarised more briefly.
Identified, attributed, and shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • "which though reported favorably by the committee" – should be "reported on", but "which though received favorably by the committee" would be more elegant
"reported favorably" is political-talk and it is what is said of bills given a thumbs up by a committee. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to see to it that" → "to ensure that"
  • "Another means of fundraising was a proposed commemorative coin" – probably "Another proposed means of fundraising was a commemorative coin"?
Preparation
  • The words "when Barber wrote to Roberts" don't seem necessary within the narrative
  • "Afterwards, Barber reported to the Mint Director, "I think we will hear no more of the Lafayette prayer" and that Peck now appreciated that the space available for a design, even on a silver dollar (the largest US coin) was limited, "and as it is the desire of the Committee [commission] to have the monument displayed, the prayer will have to find some other place". Super-long, super-complicated for a single sentence. Needs reorganisation.
Design
  • "Slabaugh noted" and "according to Slabaugh" should not occur within one sentence
  • "United States of America" and "Lafayette Dollar" appear at the top and bottom of the obverse." It's not clear what coin this sentence is referring to. It follows immediately on information relating to Krider's medals, and reads as though it's about them, though I doubt that it is.
  • "which customarily in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield..." etc – is there a source for this and the other given assumptions?
There's some discussion of it here. I've toned it down, since there seem to be doubts in the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some punctuation missing un this quote? "Lafayette is represented in the statue as a fact and a symbol, offering his sword and services to the American colonists in the cause of liberty he appears as the emblem of the aristocratic and enthusiastic sympathy shown by France to our forefathers." A sentence break is necessary, best after "cause of liberty" but possibly after "American colonists".
I'm traveling but will be home Sunday and check it against source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a sentence break was missing. Corrected.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose description of Saint-Gaudens is "Barber enemy"?
Vermeule describes elsewhere the conflicts between the two, though not in great detail, and the tone I felt justified it. However, I've added a more explicit reference the relevant text of which (available in Barber coinage) is " the 1891 competition turned the two against each other for the rest of their lives".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production and aftermath
  • Do we need the verbatim 120-word report from the Public Ledger, rather than a short paraphrase?
No, but I don't think it detracts. Most people reading at this point will be interested in the detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third para the word "similarly" seems inappropriate, since offers of $10,000 and $5,000 respectively do not seem all that similar.
  • "this was not done" → "the offer was not accepted"
  • Is any reason known for postponing the presentation to 3 March?
Not mentioned in source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The commission was also plagued" – delete "also"
  • "The commission was tardy in giving the final order for the statute to Bartlett" – spot the superfluous "t"
  • Overlinking of Bowers (see last para of previous section)
I don't see this, the only consecutive cite to Bowers is in the paragraph beginning "The commission was tardy" and the first anchors a quote.
  • In the fifth para the date "July 4" is repeated several times in close succession (I know it's my birthday, but...) At last one of these should be tweaked.
Collecting
  • "Buying a professionally graded and certified specimen should avoid this problem". This reads like advice to collectors, and does not sit well in an encyclopedia article.

Looking forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten them all, except as noted. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The issues I've raised have been fully answered/amended. WP's coin hoard continues to grow. Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I've cleared up that one final point.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

M. du Motier is at A-class review. Feel free. He's next up, absent unforeseen problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary when defining someone in that way.
  • The Lafayette dollar is valued from several hundred dollars to tens of thousands, depending on condition. - perhaps indicate that this is current, and for collectors?
It's general enough that it isn't going to change anytime soon. I'll add a "by collectors". It's worth the same whoeever owns it.
  • rebound against - have repercussions for, perhaps? Rebound always makes me think of basketball — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Columbian half dollar had been sold for $10,000. - didn't you mention this coin already, but not link it?
  • 1983-S Los Angeles Olympics dollar - worth redlining?
I really haven't considered doing modern commemoratives yet, but it's an early one and got lots of coverage so it's a possibility. Will redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really don't have much to add. This is an excellent article, in a line of excellent articles, and my only issues are all minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly for the review and support (I haven't thanked Brian yet as I haven't tracked down the source I need to check the quote he queried).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with Crisco's points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Only two passing quibbles: "DuVivier" or "Du Vivier" (we have both), and I boggle at "mementoes", but am perfectly willing to be told to keep my Limey nose out of American spelling. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It continues to astonish me how Wehwalt manages to make the (to me) dry subject of numismatics so readable. All good stuff! Tim riley talk 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support, and the kind words. I think "momentoes" is the less common form, so I've changed it. Also, the "wrong" Du Vivier is in a quote so I've added a sic template. Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat edit

Very interesting and readable, and leaning heavily to support. A couple of comments before I commit: you've probably considered them already, but no harm in looking again.

Background

  • "American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, ...": should there be a comma pre-Ben?
  • "The marquis and his son George Washington Lafayette arrived": I'd have stuck a couple of commas round the name, but your call.

Inception

  • "A total of $45,858.30 was obtained..." I know opinion is divided in giving approximate modern equivalents, but some idea of whether this was a million, ten million or more may be useful (even in a footnote)? Your call, either way.
My position on these things is there is no adequate way to relate the value of money back to a time when even a middle-class family would have hot and cold running servants. The fact that the children were asked to bring cents is an indication that money was worth more then than today. (I expect that today the children would be expected to bring in at least a fiver.

Design

  • "The obverse of the Lafayette dollar features jugate, or conjoined, heads"… You've linked jugate in the Preparation section – would the conjoined explanation be better there?
No, the reader there can use the link to find out what it means. If the reader skips that section and comes right here, he still gets an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • "His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death": I thought this had been debunked as an urban myth somewhere…? (Although for the life of me, I cannot remember where I read it!)
See the discussion with BB. It seems to apply broadly to ACW statues, but 1899 was about the time they were building such things, so it has some relevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "why [sculptor and Barber enemy[26]]": is there a reason the citation is before the punctuation?
I'm trying to make it clear that the citation is intended to go to "Barber enemy" as some question was raised concerning this by BB.

Production and aftermath

  • "Philadelphia Public Ledger reported," I know Americans seen to have a phobia of the definite article, but would you even eschew one here too? (Feel free to tell me not to interfere in colonial punctuation matters if I'm hopelessly wrong...!)

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My pleasure on the review, and I'm happy to support this interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I think we've touched all the bases on this one?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2014 (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/Lafayette_dollar/archive1&oldid=1138465529"