Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flowing Hair dollar/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 SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011.

Flowing Hair dollar

 * Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Though the article is short, I believe that it accurately and thoroughly details the Flowing Hair dollar. A coin minted for only two years, it was the first dollar coin produced officially by the United States. The press used to strike the coins was intended to strike nothing larger than a half dollar, yet the fledgling United States Mint produced what it could. Production was not without its controversies, however, as a silver standard contrary to the Coinage Act of 1792 was put into practice. Anyone who deposited silver to be coined into dollars was "short changed", literally and figuratively. Thanks in advance to the reviewers of this article! Without your dedication to the process, we would not have what great articles we do.-RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments - might have more to add later
 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names or not in references
 * Don't include categories and their subcategories
 * Given the length of the article, a two-paragraph lead is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! All of those are now fixed. Sorry about the state abbreviations. I was going to do that before (it came up last FAC) but I forgot to.-RHM22 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm seeing a rather large blank space between the "Background" header and the "Establishment of the Mint" subheading...anyone else having this problem, and if so, any way the images/infobox could be manipulated to get rid of this? Connormah (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you see the text and the picture of Hamilton between those two headers? Maybe it's not showing up to you for some reason.-RHM22 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The blank space is between the "Background" body text and the next section, is it just me? Connormah (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a gap there, but it's caused by a combination of a short preceding paragraph and the "main article" tag. Are you talking about the blank space directly to the left of the "Establishment of the Mint" section?-RHM22 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comments
 * The coinage act ref is incorrectly formatted since it's a web reproduction of a real document, not a web only source. I don't think this was published initially by the website, also don't need retrieval date  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Preston has a spam link to a google book page which does not show any relevant text. Google books should be avoided unless out of copyright full text, since access may be restricted geographically or by page  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put the Statesman's manual in bibliography to avoid two separate refs?  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I fixed the other two things, but I don't really think that the Preston book is a spam link. When I click it, I'm taken to a page that gives the entire text of the book, which is PD. Does it show something else for you?-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The coinage act isn't fixed, it was published by the US govt, not nesara.org. The google book link just goes to a page with links to Amazon and other retailers (I'm not US-based). I don't think that links should be given to except to full text available to all editors. I never link to abstracts or Google books in my own FACs. invitations to buy an article or book are just spam  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. I understand that there are different ways to cite sources, but I don't believe that mine is wrong. I removed the retrieval date for the Coinage Act, but I don't think it proper to remove the website and leave a bare link. As for the Google Books link, I think it's alright to show the link. In the Wikipedia help article about citing sources, it recommends giving a link to an electronic version of the book, even if it's not completely free to view (Amazon books, for example, which show previews only). I don't understand why you can't see the book, but I really would rather not remove it unless a lot of people have the same complaint.-RHM22 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with RHM22. Google books is a delight and a heartbreak due to international copyrights.  However, I do not think we need be so egalitarian as to help no one rather than help some.  I'd say, leave it in.  Everyone has different ways of doing things where there is no prescription in the MOS, and RHM22's seems fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Shouldn't the article have some mention about the rarity or value of these coins today? The article List of most expensive coins claims that the most expensive coin ever sold was a Flowing Hair dollar.  While I don't necessarily trust that the list is fully accurate (it surprises me that it seems to only have U.S. coins), if it is the case that the most expensive coin ever sold was a Flowing Hair dollar, I would think that should be mentioned in this article for it to be comprehensive. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That list seems accurate. To my knowledge, a world coin (meaning non-US) only recently broke the million dollar mark for the first time. Since that list only goes to two million dollars, it makes sense that no non-US coins would be on there. Thanks for the suggestion, and it seems like a good idea! I'll look for some reliable information on that and add it in there.-RHM22 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added a section about collecting that includes the information about the record-setting sale. That was a good suggestion!-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for adding that. Calathan (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Refs 6 and 7 are to "Walker", but this is not defined in the bibliography
 * nesara.org is not the publisher of the Coinage Act of 1792. I see this point has already been raised. Presumably the publisher is US Congress?
 * I think the "New York, New York" location format is unnecessary - just "New York" will do.
 * The Statesman's Manual is listed in the bibliography but has no citations
 * ISBN formats should be consistent.

Otherwise, sources look OK. No spotchecking possible due to lack of online sourcs. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I fixed them, except for two which I wanted to ask a little more about. First, should I make the publisher United States Congress? I don't want to make it a bare link with no author. As for the NY thing, I added that to keep consistent with the bibliography section, in which all the cities have the state listed as well. If it's ok to leave remove NY and still be consistent, that'd be fine with me.-RHM22 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly bothered with "New York, New York", except that it sounds like a song - and is there any place else in the world called "New York"? Acts of Congress are presumably published by Congress or by a publishing body which acts on its behalf, like in the UK we have Her Majesty's Stationery Office. So give either Congress or the authorized body as the publisher. All else OK, except that the isbn formats are still not consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few other New Yorks. I think there a few in Europe somewhere and I know there's on in Texas, which is known for its famous cities (including Paris). I'll add Congress as the publisher. Here, we have the U.S. Government Printing Office, but I don't know if they printed that particular copy of the Coinage Act. I'll look into the ISBN thing and see what I can fix. Thanks again, and my apologies to Jim for not fixing the publisher earlier. I thought he meant for me to remove the publisher alltogether and leave a plain link, but now I understand that it should be Congress.-RHM22 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, all have been fixed now except for New York. Sorry about the ISBN thing. I added the correct hyphen to the Yeoman book, but I overlooked Bowers.-RHM22 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Was the name of the replacement coin "Draped bust" or "Draped Bust"? I see both in the lead.
 * "Draped Bust" is the correct capitalization. That was a good find!-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Background: "called for the establishment of a central mint in order to supply the United States with official coinage". "in order to" is usually just a touch wordy, and "to" is often all that's required. That appears to be the case here.
 * I fixed that one.-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Design creation: Don't think the en dash is correct in "right–facing"; I believe it should be a regular hyphen.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's right. I went through the article and fixed all the misused endashes, but I missed that one! Thanks for pointing it out and for the other comments as well.-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Images
 * Not sure what the problem is with this, but the image of the Philadelphia Mint is currently a thin vertical grey line over a caption
 * "compiled a report on the United States monetary system" -> "...the American monetary system"?
 * "The Spanish dollar was one of the most popular large silver coins in the early United States" - source?
 * File:Ye_Olde_Mint,1792.jpg - why the doubled licensing tag?
 * File:Ferdinand_VI_Coin.jpg - presumably the design of the coin itself is also now PD, but it would probably be good to include a tag for it as well as the photo. Same with File:FlowingHairDollarPattern.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review! I'm not sure why you couldn't see the Mint photo. It showed up as a red X for me, but I was able to see it again after a few minutes. I suppose it is a problem with Commons or something. Anyway, I fixed everything else except for the reale coin. I'm not really sure which PD tag to use. It's a work of the Spanish government, but I didn't see any copyright tags on the list for Spanish works. Could I just use a US copyright tag, since it's in the public domain?-RHM22 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, some images of Spanish coins on Commons seem to use US tags, so unless anyone has a better idea go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I did a lot of editing to this article at an earlier stage, as RHM22 is a colleague in the ongoing (and rapidly moving!) informal project to improve the coverage of numismatics on the wiki. I have no further concerns. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with yet more comments
 * WP:LEAD - still too long
 * Ok, I've shortened it. I think it still needs three paragraphs since the last paragraph is totally different from the one before it. Do you think it's ok now?-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was minted from 1794 to 1795, with the size and weight based on the Spanish dollar, which was popular in trade throughout the Americas." - phrasing
 * Reworded to make it a little smoother.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "because of issues involving the requirement to post bond" - to the lay reader, the phrase "post bond" is related to the criminal justice system. Can this be rephrased?
 * I just removed this part of the sentence from the lead, since it's not really necessary and because the removal thereof would help shorten it.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Since there were no federal issues, the coinage needs of the states were fulfilled by a variety of domestic and foreign coins, including eight real coins (popularly known as Spanish dollars or pieces of eight), coins from a number of other nations and smaller copper coins and tokens, including coins issued by various states" - somewhat repetitive and awkward phrasing. Also, this doesn't seem to support the later assertion that the US monetary system was based on the Spanish coins
 * I agree about the awkward wording, so I removed the redundant part and just left the important stuff in it. As for the contradiction, I agree with that also. What I meant to say was that the monetary system would be based on the Spanish dollar. Prior to the Coinage Act, the monetary system was not based on any one coin type, and instead various other coins were used here and there since at least the 17th century, since England didn't allow the colonies to mint their own coins. Anyway, the idea of the sentence was to say that since Hamilton chose the Spanish dollar as the basis for the silver dollar (the coin on which all smaller silver coins are based), it would become the basis for the entire monetary system, since coins were a lot more important then than they are now. Nice catch, and it has been fixed!-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now that coinage of the silver denominations could begin" - presumably you mean the minting thereof?
 * "Castaing machine" is probably worth a redlink. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually I don't use redlinks, but this is a very important machine that does deserve an article. I'll write a quick one if I can find some good information.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I've addressed all of them.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Support. I've made a few copyedits, but it otherwise reads well.
 * In the last section, I think the "it was announced" formulation is cumbersome. If the sale is sourced adequately, why not just state the facts in a declarative sentence?
 * That's all for now, but I'll take a second run at it later tonight or tomorrow. --Coemgenus 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and the copyedit! I've fixed the sentence you metioned.-RHM22 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I read it again and it looks all good to me. Changed to support.  --Coemgenus 21:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I get the sense from a Google search that specimen striking would benefit from a link to either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Until we have a link, a quick in-line definition would help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedits and suggestion! I have worked the conditions under which the coin was struck into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These and these were my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.