Talk:Standing Liberty quarter

Untitled
I just fixed something on the box in the article and it worked but after that some cite error message showed up. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? NHRHS2010 | Talk to me  00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Collector Oriented
Does anyone else feel that this article is a little too collector oriented? It seems like more of the article was devoted to the collector market than to actual information about this series. That's not to devalue the work of the creators of this article. It just seems like there should be some more information. I may add mintage numbers later if no one objects to that. -RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Standing Liberty quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812190351/http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/mercury-dimes-ch-1-history-of-the-mercury-dime-series/ to http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/mercury-dimes-ch-1-history-of-the-mercury-dime-series/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Standing Liberty quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619001334/https://www.coinworld.com/news/mint-releases-mock-up-designs-for-gold-2016-centennial-issues.html%23 to http://www.coinworld.com/news/mint-releases-mock-up-designs-for-gold-2016-centennial-issues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Standing Liberty quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315221640/http://www.coincommunity.com/us_coin_links/us_quarters_standing_liberty.asp to http://www.coincommunity.com/us_coin_links/us_quarters_standing_liberty.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Photo Of "Dateless" Coin Needs To Be Changed
In the photo that is there now, enough of the "1" as the last digit of the date is still visible as to make the coin identifiable as a 1921, since this is the only year ending in "1" in which Standing Liberty quarters were produced - and since 1921 is one of the rarest dates in the entire Standing Liberty series, this coin would actually command a substantial price on the market!

Another coin in which the date is completely worn away needs to be substituted, since no last digit appears more than once from 1916 through 1924.
 * Better just to change the caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding another coin with the date completely worn away would pose no problem at all. Just look on ebay!--TOttenville8|(talk) 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but we don't own the copyright to eBay's photographs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Armor
The text mentions that the figure was, in time, clothed in a chain mail vest, but the links are very large for chain mail. Are you sure that it's not Scale armour, which has the additional advantage of being true to the Classical period of history? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I worked on the article, but I'm pretty sure I got the source's description. I'll look into it, though it will likely be later this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Egregious" ?
In the very first line of the intro, "egregious" is used and I'm not sure why. The word is a very opinionated one and makes the intro very subjective. Plus, as for what's mentioned in the article/entry, only one person --- Philadelphia Mint superintendent Adam M. Joyce --- was opposed to the design (in fact, it seems he was opposed to any new designs ! ).

To keep objectivity/neutrality, I think the word "egregious" should be removed.

What do the rest of you think? 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)