Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flying Eagle cent/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 list was promoted by 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Flying Eagle cent

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The Flying Eagle cent was the first U.S. small cent. It did not last long, but it had an impact both in ending the common use of foreign coins in the United States and in making Americans more aware of their coins. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: Nothing much:
 * Compare "pp" and "p" formats in refs 7 and 27
 * If you want it, there is an OCLC for the 1904 book; it is 8109299

Otherwise all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the OCLC and corrected ref 27, which should have been pp, not p. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Hi Wehwalt, pls follow the usual routine of checking with a delegate before having two articles at FAC simultaneously. Granted Andrew Johnson was ready for promotion so leave was always likely but we have the same rule for all -- in fact Johnson might have been promoted before now with such a reminder... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He's waited 137 years, it didn't hurt him to wait another week. Just trying to get a few extra eyes on the article as I left Wed. on a trip, but I'll respect your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments, leaning to support : A fairly standard coin article, with a few minorish prose issues:
 * Lead


 * Second lead paragraph mentions the "large cent" and a decision to replace this with a smaller one, Could we have some indicaton of these sizes? I realise this info is probably in the article's main body, but this lead is quite short and perhaps coule be expanded a bit?
 * In the same spirit, a few words on the origin/nature of the "worn foreign coin" would be helpful.
 * If the coin was struck by the United States Bureau of the Mint, why wasn't it legal tender?
 * It wasn't made of silver or gold. It as basically a government-issued token, you needed some way to make change..  Legal tender limits on minor coinage survived until 1933.  Those British Victorian copper pennies you may have seen--those weren't legal tender in the UK either, at least when they were issued.  All because of the gold standard and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Inception


 * What is a "billon"?
 * For clarity, "$.40" neds to be written as "$0.40", since the point is barely discernible.
 * Maybe just "issue" rather than "issuance" which is a mite pompous
 * Preparation


 * In British English, to "show off" means to flaunt, or make an extravagant display, so "sent to Washington for Treasury officials to show off" reads a bit oddly. Perhaps the nuance is different in American English, but an alternative may be preferable.
 * "So originated the highly-collectable 1856 Flying Eagle cent..." A touch rhetorical? Perhaps "This was the origin of..."? Prosaic, but maybe more encyclopedic.
 * "brought up in the House of Representatives" → "brought to the House of Representatives"
 * Link "planchet"
 * Release, production, and collecting


 * " In anticipation of large popular demand, Mint authorities built a temporary wooden structure in the courtyard of the Philadelphia facility" Possibly unnecessary detail?
 * It's color. It's not a long article, I think the reader is interested in the circumstances.


 * " with a new version of the cent with a shallower relief..." The "with ... with" repetition is a bit clumsy
 * "Variety" and "varieties": I think "variation" and "variations" would be better, since "variety" always suggests more than two.
 * It's a numismatic term and I have linked accordingly.


 * "was extended an additional two years" → "was extended for an additional two years"
 * "With commerce choked with..." "With ... with" again
 * " Snowden on his own continued the practice..." I'm not sure what is implied by "Snowden on his own". As a private individual? Also the practice that he continued needs to be clarified.

That is all. I was half hoping that Ulrich Stonewall Jackson Dunbar would make an appearance but sadly, no. Ah, well... Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those comments which I will work through today, time permitting. Regarding Mr. Dunbar, I shall have to learn more of him, it strikes me he would make a useful DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Those matters have been implemented, except as commented above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been so long responding. I was hoping that other reviewers would join in with some comments, but things seem rather quiet here at the moment. No reason for not supporting, so I've upgraded; I hope others willl come along soon. This is a worthy series. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably need to do more reviewing, but I've been traveling, but will be home today. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support – this article is part of an impressive set by Wehwalt, and is well up to the prevailing standard of excellence. This comment is not in the least a reservation about my support, and what with laptops, desktops, pads, and overblown mobile phones I suppose there is no standard screen layout. But I mention, for Wehwalt's consideration, that on my newish laptop there is a four inch white gap between the header "Inception" and the start of the text. That really is the only comment I can usefully (I hope) offer on a top-notch article. – Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a relatively short infobox I think the problem is. I've filled in with an image of Longacre and will keep playing with it.  Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Support -- very nice article, and a good addition to your continuing series on numismatics. The only comment I have regards the size: I understand (I think) that this cent is the same size as the modern Lincoln penny, but I don't think the article ever makes that clear. It just says it was smaller than the large cent. Adding that comparison might help the reader. But, either way, I support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add it in. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. That's interesting about the weight, too.  Good luck with the nomination.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Image check. Images look good. All are PD or gov't-produced, except for one CC, which is properly attributed. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Three supports, image and source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.