Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coinage Act of 1873/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2015.

Coinage Act of 1873

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a seemingly innocuous piece of rather specialized legislation that turned into a major political controversy (think as divisive as say, abortion, today) that divided the nation through much of the rest of the 19th century. I'd like to express my appreciation to for supplying wonderful images and to, the peer reviewer.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:John_Jay_Knox_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP
 Comments , leaning support.


 * Disambiguation
 * Greenbacks, in Background section is wikilinked to dab page.


 * External links
 * No bad links.

I'll do more later. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fixed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * You end the lead at 1900 and the gold standard. I'm not a currency or coinage guy, but haven't we abandoned the gold standard too? That should be addressed if we are going past the 1873 act to the 1900 act, etc.
 * We have. The reason for going past the 1873 act was to address the controversy it caused.  The 1900 act, and McKinley's re-election that year, ended the controversy, politically.  I'm hesitant to discuss a century or so of economic history here.  It seemed a reasonable end point for context.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe just a comment on the "U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 19xx..." or something? As it stands, it appears that we are still on the gold standard. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Silver dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I'm not clear on the use of the Cross of Gold speech (1896) in the background section, it seems to me to be better suited later in the article, as the speech was a response to the gold standard of the 1873 act. I would think that it would be more appropriate in the Aftermath section.
 * I often link it to the Background section of that article, where there's a discussion of monetary standards. That's the purpose in linking it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Half dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
 * You repeatedly mention the bimetalic standard, but it's not really explained. A couple of lines will help readers, such as myself, who don't understand the difference.
 * I've added something. The problem is, it's not within people's common experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Inception
 * Transition between the first and second paragraph is rough, seemingly jumping from one subject to another. In addition, they seem to be out of chronological order.
 * I've reversed those paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Consideration and passage
 * Dime and quarter should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.

More later. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Intent of the bill's authors
 * No comment, other than to reiterate the above comment on bimetalism.


 * Provisions
 * Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers (§§1–12)
 * Awkwardly worded first sentence. "Although there had been a Director of the Mint since its origin, his office was at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Mint Director." Maybe: "The Director of the Mint's office had always been at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Director." Or something. I know I'm not the best wordsmith here, so feel free to change my suggestion.
 * Adopted with very slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Coins and deposit of bullion (§§13–39)
 * Is there a reason that the two images of the 2-cent and 3-cent coins do not have a border? All the rest of the images have borders.
 * Limitations of the image software that won't take several crops in a stack.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Testing and the Assay Commission (§§40–50)
 * No comment.


 * Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions (§§51–67)
 * No comment.

More later. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * Later reaction
 * No comment.


 * "Crime of '73"
 * No comment.


 * Notes
 * Note "a" needs a period at the end of the sentence.
 * It's not a sentence, so no period. At least that's how I do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well done article. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I think I've hit everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great article, and I've moved to support the promotion to FA. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now added the bit about the gold standard, . Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus
I made some comments at peer review that were resolved there, but I'll give it a second reading and see if anything else jumps out at me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I'm not sure you need the hatnote. The explanation here is as good as the one you did at that article.
 * Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be good to mention that the reason base metal coins aren't hoarded is that, lacking in precious metal, they only had value because the government says so. After so many years of fiat money, many readers may not grasp that point without explanation.
 * Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the greenbacks sentence, it might help to add that they were needed to finance the war because of the unprecedented outlays required then. That would help readers understand why they became unnecessary at the war's end.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of "pursuant to Gresham's Law", I'd say "as predicted by Gresham's Law".
 * This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Inception
 * First sentence of the last paragraph: I think where you say supersede, you might be more accurate to say "repeal". Supersede overlaps with "rewrite" otherwise, doesn't it?
 * This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * Do any of your sources explain why the San Francisco mint didn't coin pennies or nickels? That seems like an odd practice, considering the long-standing shortages there.
 * They would likely not have been accepted until the turn of the century because of the hard-money prejudice. The mints that weren't Philadelphia were, prior to this, limited by statute to coining silver and gold, since that is really why they were set up, to turn hard-to-deal with bullion into money.  Knox in his report and the 1873 act keep the prohibition but go about it a different way: require that the metal for the minor coinage be paid for by an annual appropriation and only give it to Philadelphia. So there was no money to strike minor coinage anyplace else but Philadelphia.  The limitation to Philadelphia really isn't discussed in his report, what they are doing is tightening up on the Mint's pursestrings, which were very lax at one time. The bullion fund was the source of repeated complaints by Mint Directors and Congress kept increasing it.  They started complaining in the 1890s I think about the limitation to Philadelphia, now that base metal coins were more accepted and there were things like the penny arcade, yet coins had to be shipped across the continent. Congress repealed the limitation in 1906.  I think it would be tedious to tell the reader any subset of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. Yes, I think that is beyond the scope of this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence that starts "Although some, known as Greenbackers..." is kind of awkward. Since greenbacks became a fringe issue after resumption, I'd focus on the silver-gold debate and truncate the first part of that sentence up to the word "support".
 * This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Crime of '73
 * Instead of "long-lived", "accepted as fact" or "an article of faith" might read better.
 * This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything else looks great, and I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Crisco

 * The gold standard was explicitly enacted into law in 1900, and was finally completely abandoned in 1971. - Why "finally"? I don't see what it adds.
 * Having a dollar be defined in terms of two different metals is called bimetallism. - This strikes me as jarring. Perhaps it could be worked into the flow of the article a bit better (also, and this is nitpicking, having the value of any monetary unit determined by two different metals would be bimetallism, rather than just the dollar)
 * Virtually everyone alive has never experienced anything but some form of fiat money system. It's difficult to describe a standard-based system, and it's difficult to comprehend.  I've taken another shot at it.


 * The 1873 act moved his office to Washington, where he supervised the new Bureau of the Mint. - Why use the male pronoun here?
 * At the time, there had not been a female Mint Director. If you feel some other phrasing would be wiser, feel free to propose it.
 * What do you think of this? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Mint of the United States had originally reported directly to the president but over time legislation had made it subject to control by the Treasury Secretary. - perhaps specify that this is de facto subject to control
 * Full control in the areas specified by legislation, so it was at least somewhat de jure.


 * an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner; - if these are used as general nouns, why the capitals?
 * They are titles of office, and if lower cased, they could lead to confusion.
 * What about "one Assayer" etc.? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken another stab at it.


 * (soon to be known as "Silver Dick") - Chuckle — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'll never be able to think about Congressman Bland the same way. Thanks for the review.  I will work through your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks again. All done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
I've tried and failed to find something to grumble at. The best I can manage is to say that in my view "millions of dollars worth of silver bullion" could do with a possessive apostrophe after "dollars", though I know that some grammarians admit the construction without one. Trying even harder, I see both "demonitization" and "demonetization", but the former is within a quotation, and is no doubt what the original author wrote. I'm throwing in the towel and supporting. –  Tim riley  talk    12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed. The quotation is accurate, I just checked it. And I think the apostrophe is to be avoided there, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sturvogel_66

 * Fair number of duplicate links.
 * Mint Director James Pollard submitted the bill to Congress on April 25, 1870. What does this mean? AFAIK, only Congressmen and Senators can introduce bills.
 * I kinda figured that Sherman was acting for the Administration in introducing the bill, but I just wanted clarification.
 * Why did Sherman vote against his own bill?
 * That's all I've got, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. The executive branch often drafts bills and submits them to congressmen, often the heads of committees, for them to introduce on the administration's behalf.  And back then, Congress had fewer staff and drafting services and all that stuff. On Sherman, source doesn't say.  I went and looked through the Congressional Globe and it doesn't say.  I though it might be for purposes of re-consideration, but Justin Morrill of Vermont, who was very solid on financial matters, also voted against. He lost on the amendment, and then on the vote. Fun stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the duplicate links, they look like all lede-body duplicates which is how I do it, or fairly far apart in the article.
 * I'm using this script which shows them in Consideration and passage, Coins and deposit of bullion (§§13–39), Testing and the Assay Commission (§§40–50) sections. The script doesn't test duplicate links in the infobox or lede, only in the main body. Pity about no info on Sherman, though; would have been nice to get into the nitty-gritty of the politics of the period even more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are probably looking at the same congressional documents I did. I've delinked. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: Reviewed in detail at peer review. Above comments and fixes noted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Requested a source review—please let me know if there's one I've missed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources review: The Friedman article should be removed from "Further reading", as it is a cited source. Otherwise, all sources are of  appropriate quality and reliability, and all citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that ... I've made that cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.