User:RHM22/Sandbox

From Talk:Shooting thaler

FL
Do you think this could make it to featured list?-RHM22 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've really never dealt with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the only coin-related FL is Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium), and this one looks very similar. There's one FL of the currencies of the world, but that's really not anything like this one.-RHM22 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's two and a half years since that was promoted, you might want to compare against a recently promoted one although obviously there will be a difference in subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a little research into the process and looked at several recently promoted article as you've suggested. From what I've seen, I don't think this would pass as is. I believe that the references are alright, but I don't think that the lead is large enough, and I don't think that I have enough useful information to add anything else without making the article redundant. I think I'll just wait for now until I come across some more reliable information to add. Nice work on your Buffalo nickel article by the way. I noticed it was promoted to GA.-RHM22 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I was hoping for more feedback. Ask someone who is into FL to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked someone by the name of "Dabomb87", who is one of the FL directors. Just out of curiousity, why didn't you go for FA on the Buffalo nickel article?-RHM22 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I presently have the maximum number of articles there, and the next slot is promised to my collaboration with Ssilvers,Flower Drum Song.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. The idea is to have some review of the article prior to FAC, to catch obvious errors and because it is expected.  The nickel will get there in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand. Why is there a limit though? It seems like great contributions would be greatly encouraged. Maybe the limit is there to prevent spamming? Anyway, it's very good work. I'm thinking of expanding the coverage of classic U.S. commemoratives. I've done a little cleaning of Columbian Exposition half dollar. Do you have any reccomendations for a good book on early commemoratives? The only one I have is Commemorative Coins of the United States by Anthony Swiatek. It's got mostly collecting and investing information, so the coverage is a little light as far as history of the designs and such.-RHM22 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there are a limited number of reviewers ... I'm not at home right now, nothing obvious comes to mind on a good ref on early commemoratives (I think there's a paperback in the Bowers Guide Book series) but let me look at my copy of Breen. I'd love to do Maundy money, btw but refs are scarce.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost bought a Victorian Maundy set once. I don't have a copy, but the Spink & Son series might have some in-depth information on Maundy coinage. They're pretty expensive, so it's probably not worth purchasing just for the Maundy information (if there is any), but you could probably borrow a copy from the ANA library. It's been in print for a long time, so I'm sure they have several copies on hand.-RHM22 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't buy Maundy sets from before 1909, when they restricted distribution. Yes, I will check with them.  One thing that I would love sources on are French pieforts.  I can't even find French sources on them!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the Spink book. I gave a check on their website, and it seems the book only covers values. There might be some light information in there (similar to the Red Book), but you probably won't find much good information except maybe mintage figures. this book might have some useful information on Maundy coins. I've used it a few times for other things.
 * What you typed was probably a typo, but did you check for the spelling "piedfort"? Some American references use "Piefort", but that's not correct.-RHM22 (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mental error. Spink has mintages, no?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you for sure, but I'm fairly certain that Spink has mintages. They're not as expensive as I thought either. The current issue on the website seems to be only £25 (About $40, if I'm right).-RHM22 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I should add - if you're only interested in mintages, Krause has them in the respective editions.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought they did. I have an old copy of Seaby's around, that has it too.  And I picked up, two days ago, a 1960s books on English silver and gold coins that has at least some info (It is out in the car, or I'd tell you the name).  That price, btw must be per coin.  Maybe you could get that for oddments, but a 2010 set I think I would expect to pay at least a hundred pounds.  The mintages don't seem to have gone down, in fact the opposite as the Queen aged, but it is rather hard to get 1990s or 2000s issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant the Spink reference didn't cost much. The new Maundy sets cost quite a bit because a limited number are minted. I don't know a lot about them, but I would think that £100 would probably be a pretty good price for a modern Maundy set. Seaby should be the same as Spink, just older.-RHM22 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had an opportunity to buy a complete Maundy kit once (I think from 1973, meaning 47p in coin, with the leather bags, tickets and invitations to the service, etc) and passed on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to try for FL on this. I won't get penalized or anything if it isn't accepted, will I?-RHM22 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know their rules. At FA, if one fails you have to either get permission or wait two weeks to nom another.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to nominate it then. It's no big deal to me if I have to wait two weeks, because I doubt there'll be anything else I'll want to nominate in that time. I think it has a good chance of being accepted.-RHM22 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Test
"In the heat of the crucible, the melted gold is cleansed of its impurities."