Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Eckfeldt/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC).

Adam Eckfeldt

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Adam Eckfeldt was a significant figure in the early days of U.S. coinage. I've been working on the article on and off for a while, and it is a Four Award candidate. It's rather short, and I should note that I will be at the American Numismatic Association library on September 13 and 14 if there are any sourcing issues. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

 * In the lead, should "Chief Coiner of the United States Mint" be capitalized? I'm uncertain, and a quick browsing of references shows disagreement.  I'm also not sure if the position is notable enough for a redlink; we have an article for Chief Engraver of the United States Mint but not one for the Coiner.
 * I do not think the Chief Coiner is worth an article. Possibly a list, since several of the incumbents have been notable.  The work of the coiner is more mechanical than the artistic work done by the Engraver, which people are interested in because he is the guy who designs the coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the "Early career" section should be titled "Early life" instead, since the bulk of it is not career-based information?
 * In a departure from a usual complaint, there's quite a bit of underlinking. Most (though not all) series of US coinage have their own articles, which should probably be linked where appropriate. It's weird to me that the 1792 half disme has an article, and the Birch cent doesn't. Worth a redlink, perhaps?  But the early large cents all have articles, so can be linked, perhaps like this: "When the Mint's initial cents were found to be excessively crude and attracted public ridicule, Eckfeldt was called upon to design replacements." And while there's not ever likely to be an article for the 1792 pattern disme, it's covered at Dime (United States coin), so that can be linked in the next paragraph.
 * I suspect this article is the correct one, but the claim here that Eckfeldt engraved the first half cent dies differs from the claim in Half cent (United States coin) that they were designed and engraved by Voigt.
 * According to Don Taxay's book The U.S. Mint and Coinage, at page 71, discussing the "first die made in it" story, saying it is very likely the 1792 disme (which was never struck in any number and is excessively rare) "its portrait is almost identical to that on the 1793 half cent, for which Eckfeldt is said to have claimed credit."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's not the most definitive claim I've ever seen! Since you said you were going to be at the ANS library this weekend, I suspect that either Roger Cohen's American Half Cents, the "Little Half Sisters" or Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States Half Cents would have a more decisive answer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ANA library rather, I fly to Colorado Springs tomorrow. Their catalog is online but I have no doubt they have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, while I was at the library this morning, it did not open nor will tomorrow due to the excessive rainfall they are having in the area, so that washes out my trip. Not a total loss, I'm in Wyoming and will get some images of Oregon Trail monuments for my article on same.  This from Google books of Breen's big book (which I own, but it's home) seems to say that Eckfeldt engraved the die based on David Rittenhouse's sketches.  --Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about George Escol Sellers is interesting enough, but it's an awful lot of space dedicated to a one-off interaction with a redlinked person. Why is this important?
 * It's not terribly, I was thinking to expand the article a bit in the last few months, and I felt it was worth including as showing a bit of the man himself, not merely what he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it accurate to link "master coins" to proof coinage? I'm not certain what the sources say on the matter.
 * Actually, yes, I've got an explicit source for the claim that Eckfeldt's "master coins" are what are now called proofs (on page 21): Johnston, Elizabeth Bryant (1876). A Visit to the Cabinet of the United States Mint, at Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J. N. Lippincott. OCLC 648304048.
 * The prose in "Private and family life" could do with a copyedit, I think. That's doubly true since it swaps to calling him Eckhardt in the second paragraph.
 * In the "Chief coiner" section (should that be "Chief Coiner"? -- I am still unsure the correct capitalization here), the references to the first sentence are not in numerical order. This has been my Mandatory Really Picky FAC Comment for today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where it is a title before a name, it gets the caps. Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt. but Adam Eckfeldt, the chief coiner.  The capitalization in the heading is because a heading begins with a capital letter.


 * The Numismatist is ideally cited as a journal, with volume/issue/page numbers.
 * Get those for you on Friday. I'll be online direct from there both days, 10:30 to 5 MDT, minus setup time on either end of that!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't. I will email the librarian on Tuesday and see if she can help out on volume/issue if I can't find it online.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no firm commitment to either outcome at this time, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the typo. I will work through the ones I did not answer, and will report back when I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for the ones I've replied to, I've addressed these. It is good to have a review from someone who knows coins from sources other than my articles!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Why specify state for NYC but not Philly? Either do both or do neither
 * Why the different formatting on the two Numismatist articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by PSky
 * Agree with Nikki. Plus you have N.Y., Ga. and Col. State abbreviation style should be consistent.
 * Why does the Camparetti ref have and external jump off the page number? Nothing else does. I thought a FAC rule was no web/googlebook links for things that were in print form (books, journal articles, etc). I may be mistaken though.
 * Image Check The image in the infobox needs a category on commons. This is all I see wrong with the images.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the comments of the above two reviewers. Thank you both for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support now.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Do my eyes deceive me? A Wehwalt article under 10k? I haven't seen one of these in ages!
 * Likely my shortest ever FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What's with the quotes around his common name (i.e. in the first sentence).
 * which some - who?
 * I have added "authorities". More detail available by consulting the source in the body of the article, or our article (shoddy though it is) on the 1792 half disme.


 * until his 1852 death. - don't see a point in repeating the YOD in such short succession
 * at $500 per year. - receiving a salary of
 * Done using slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * When the dies used proved too brittle, and cracked easily, Eckfeldt came up with the idea of spraying water on the face of the die so the steel would temper evenly. - Used for what? And was Eckfeldt supplying the dies?
 * The dies were engraved under the supervision of the Mint's chief engraver, Robert Scot. Undoubtedly Eckfeldt, who was a capable engraver, pitched in as necessary, and was involved in a lot of preparation.  Scot and Eckfeldt would have had to work closely together in any case to get best results.  The dies would be mounted in a screw press and used to strike coins using muscle power (usually human) until they installed steam machinery in the 1830s. Dies tend to crack over time, so you want the best steel you can get and use.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Brasher Doubloon - why does the article have double capitals?
 * That is how the term has evolved. I admit that properly the d should be lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hahn died in 1792?
 * The sources do not say. Ancestry.com says 1796 but I'm suspicious of it because it says he had only three children.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Adam's daughter Susanna married William Ewing DuBois, first curator of the Mint's coin collection. - Might be worth mentioning her before going into the Jacobs.
 * owned rural property in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, which was owned - Owned - owned. Can we avoid this?
 * Very stunning. I will upload background-free versions of the medals.
 * I'd love to own one, but they are not often seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Images are okay - AGF on the old Numicist journal as Google doesn't allow me to look at it.
 * Thanks for the review and the comments, those are now all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The quotes on the name? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and images. Another nice read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
I'm coming a little late to the party. Apologies if any of my issues have been raised and answered before. Mine are mainly small points, but they include some suggestions on the reorganisation of prose in some sections and on increasing the detail in others.


 * Clash of tenses in 2nd lead para: "built" and "engraved", then "is responsible" followed by "was appointed"
 * Since we still have the coins, the responsibility continues, but I've changed "is" to "was"


 * "Even after his 1839 retirement, Eckfeldt continued to perform his duties at the Mint until his death, which caused his replacement, Franklin Peale, to seek an assistant." A bit confused as to meaning. I take it to be that the role filled by Eckhardt after his retirement was such that, when he died, Peale, his successor as chief coiner, sought to replace him with an official assistant, but this is not completely clear. (Note: I raise this issue in my comments on the main text, so it is perhaps better dealt with there).
 * I've tweaked the language regardless.


 * "John Jacob Eckfeldt had made dies for Robert Morris's coinage..." I don't think "had" is required here. More important, I think you should identify Robert Morris, rather than making readers use the link. The article is short enough to benefit from this kind of detail.
 * "Early life" is pretty devoid of detail; do the sources provide nothing more?
 * That's the gist of it. this is typical of the stuff I'm working from.  As you well know, I tend to write long and cut later.  There just aren't a lot of sources, and what there is tends to repeat each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Coin designer and Mint official: I found the opening to the section a little too abrupt: there is no context given to help the non-American reader understand that the era is that of the aftermath of the War of Independence, and the establishment of the US as an independent nation. I would have expected to see a sentence on this background, followed by something like: "The Mint was created by Congress with the Coinage Act of 1792...". Also, it is presumably of some significance that Eckfeldt was based in Philadelphia, then the home of Congress, and was thus, as it were, on the spot. This link should be made, rather than the bald announcement that in 1792 he was making machinery for the Mint.
 * No date information in the third paragraph of this section. Thus "the same year" is undefined.
 * In the fourth paragraph, Eckfeldt is first mentioned by a pronoun. The paragraph itself reads a bit haphazardly, and lacks narrative continuity. A more solid introduction (references omitted) might be:
 * "Eckfeldt continued to work intermittently for the Philadelphia Mint; in 1793, he built a device for automatically feeding planchets into the die collar and ejecting the struck coins, and the mint's records reveal that he did piecework there in July 1795. By October 1795 he was on the mint's payroll, as a 'Die Forger and Turner' at a salary of $500 per year. On January 1 1796..."


 * "piecework" should be linked
 * The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't seem integrated with the rest; is there a date for this bit of Eckfeldt ingenuity?
 * I am searching for my copy of this article and will get back to you on this.
 * Found it (it is a page image and so unindexed on my laptop). Smith attributes this to the late Walter Breen, but it is not in Breen's large volume and he does not say which of Breen's many books and articles it might be in.  Or if he just heard it from Breen directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Chief coiner" section: "On the death of the first chief coiner..." In the previous paragraph you have capitalised "Assistant Coiner". Perhaps be consistent. I would also specify: "...of the mint's Chief Coiner"
 * Instead I have made assistant coiner lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "specialists have discovered that he inadvertently used specific dies which were never used together to strike coins for commerce, thereby creating unique varieties". I am sure this makes good sense to numismatists. For the uninitiated it is difficult to get one's head around; maybe it's the order of the wording, but I am struggling. Is the sense that "when striking coins for commercial use he inadvertently used dies for the obverse and reverse that were not otherwise used together, thereby creating unique varieties of coin"?
 * Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also shift the sentence beginning "Among the pieces acquired..." to immediately after "These pieces became the Mint's Cabinet, or coin collection", as it seems to logically follow there.
 * "...again became involved in the real estate transactions..." I don't recall redaing about a previous involvement with real estate.
 * (above two comments) Also, the wording "For $1,000, he purchased one of the lots he had rented in 1805" rather implies we know about this land, when this is actually the first mention.
 * It is referring to the "In 1805, at Boudinot's request, Eckfeldt eliminated a security problem for the Mint by renting two houses adjacent to its operations, allowing it to shut an internal alley to public access."


 * It should be possible to avoid the wording "cloud on its title", which requires a link to understand it, by simply saying an "irregularity", which is immediately understandable. However, I am unsure of the relevance of this, particularly in a section with the title "Chief coiner".
 * Given the short length of the article I am reluctant to strike it. I will change the "cloud on title".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph the information needs to be presented slightly differently. We don't read until the final sentence that the reason why Eckfeldt continued as de facto chief coiner was because his nominal successor busied himself in other enterprises. It would be better to begin with a statement of Exkhardt's retirement; then state who his successor was and what he did, thus providing the reason for Eckhardt continuing with his duties and also explaining why, on Eckhardt's death, Peale needed an assistant.
 * I have a found a source with a bit more on the relationship with Peale and will add stuff shortly. Peale was quite a character and I have an article on him cooking in a sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Private and family life": "Jacob Reese Eckfeldt, another of Adam's sons" - you've just mentioned a daughter, not a son.
 * "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt exceeded both in time of service..." To whom does "both" refer?
 * As there are two images of the retirement medal, perhaps the text should include some context, e.g. who authorised it, who designed it etc?
 * Well, it was Moritz Fuerst. I will see if I have anything further on the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your most thorough review. I have found an additional source and have added more material and I hope cleared up those issues you have rightly pointed out.  If I have not replied, I have agreed and hopefully dealt with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Always willing to be of assistance when wanted. I'll read the article again, later tonight (got the TFA blues today) or if not, tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Support: Very positive responses to my points raised above. Much text added (including, I was glad to see, a mention of the old family firm). The article looks comprehensive now, given the limited extent of reliable sources. I look forward to reading more about the evidently villaneous Peale, when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Always happy to do a shout out. Thank you for the review and support.  We shall see on Peale.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell
This article is strong. The lead correctly sums up all sections of the article, the the MOS is generally followed throughout. The images are all legitimately free, with all necessary information provided. They are used appropriately and have good captions. Despite being short, the article seems as comprehensive and the sources allow. I don't see any balance issues.

I made a dozen or so minor edits for wording and grammar, and one for overlinking. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to revert and discuss. In addition, I have some wording issues:
 * I'm not sure what "put aside" means in the second paragraph of "Chief coiner". A rewording might help to clarify. Perhaps this? "Eckfeldt set aside 'master coins'—[...]—into a private collection." Same with the lead. "Put aside" is just not a familiar phrase for me.
 * I've changed to "set aside" but they were not a private collection, they remained government property. Eckfeldt just contributed the value of these coins to the Mint so the books would balance.  It's very clear he was a wealthy man.
 * I suppose it's clear enough now. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The clause "He also restruck coins from the early days of the Philadelphia facility of which it did not have specimens" feels awkward to me. A rewording is needed here.
 * BB also raised that concern and I think I was working on it as you reviewed, as you edited only a minute or so after I did.
 * It's quite clear now. Well said. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The single-sentence paragraph is "Chief coiner" feels out of place. First, it could use to be broken up. But second, it isn't clear what it has to do with Eckfeldt. You don't say if Eckfeldt knew of these ideas, or if they were ever implemented, or what. The third problem is that the source doesn't mention Peale or his visit. It could be that the sentence should just be omitted. If not, it might be better clarified and included in the previous paragraph's information.
 * Update: This has already changed, apparently while I was reviewing, but many of the same issues still apply. – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a source (I actually had looked to check on the pages, but forgot to add it). I will look at the others.
 * Could you look at it again? I was adding matter right after as you were editing from the Ferguson pamphlet and it may well have been addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, now it feels relevant, and seems to be in logical sequence. Great. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph of "Chief coiner", two sentences in a row say that Eckfeldt "continued to [work/perform] ... without [pay/compensation]". Once is enough.
 * I think that's gone.
 * Great. But I'm pretty sure you men Eckfeldt, not Peale, in "Nevertheless, Peale continued to perform the functions..." (I changed this; If I'm misinterpreting, please revert me.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of "Chief coiner" is confusing to me. What time is "the time"?
 * That may already have been massaged out.
 * Does "the freed-up time" mean time when Peale was officially Chief Coiner, but Eckfeldt was doing the work? If so, consider changing the order of the final two sentences in that paragraph. (I think it would make the sense clearer.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase "No children were born by his brief first marriage" feels like it could be worded better. Born from? Born of? Produced by? I'm not sure the best way to phrase this.
 * Born of, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording "exceeded both forebears in time of service" is very old-fashioned and a bit difficult for moderns to parse.
 * I'm open to suggested changes there. "Ancestors" is just as bad.  I can't say "predecessors" as they did not all hold the same office.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would simply say "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt worked at the Mint longer than anyone else in the family&mdash;64 years, from 1865 to 1929." Or "...worked at the Mint for an even longer period of time: 64 years, from 1865 to 1929." But I can see why that might not be everyone's preference. I don't think any of these wordings is bad, or an impediment to featured status; just pick what you think best gets the point across to a 21st-century reader. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While 64 years is longer than any other Eckfeldt almost certainly, there were other Eckfeldts who worked for the Mint (Theodore, for example). The source only goes so far in saying that, and I would not care to go beyond the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I also have a couple sourcing questions.
 * Is it worth mentioning that he was the first president (not just a president) of the Good Will Fire Company?
 * Added.


 * Is there a reason Scharf and Wescott's book isn't in the bibliography?
 * Similarly, the magazine articles in The Numismatist are in the bibliography, but the magazine articles in The Franklin Journal and American Mechanics' Magazine are not.
 * Migrated to biblio.
 * Great. That also makes the page number for "Franklin Institute" clearer. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten to everything. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I hope you'll consider the wording choices suggestions above, but regardless, this article definitely passes all requirements for featured status. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support. I will look at your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.