Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gobrecht 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 not promoted by Imzadi1979 00:50, 8 June 2011.

Gobrecht dollar

 * Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The Gobrecht dollar, named after its engraver Christian Gobrecht, is more accurately known as the Flying Eagle dollar, however that terminology is practically extinct these days in numismatic parlance. The obverse is most often credited to Thomas Sully and the reverse to Titian Peale, though a series of individuals were responsible for what ultimately ended up on the coin. The Gobrecht dollar was minted essentially as a trial to determine how a silver dollar would fare in the public eye, as none had been minted for approximately thirty years prior. Apparently the people judged it positively, because the Seated Liberty dollar, which utilizes the same obverse design, began mintage immediately following the conclusion of the Gobrecht dollar. This is the sixth dollar coin article I've nominated for FAC, and the seventh overall (that rascal Wehwalt got to one before me!). Thanks to all the reviewers for your hard work!-RHM22 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. The only issue I see is that ref 13 needs more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I added some more information to the ref, but I'm not sure if that's enough. I don't know the publisher, so I'm not sure what to add for that.-RHM22 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Under "1804 dollar", the first two sentences could probably be combined and the word "officially" is superfluous.
 * In the second graf in that section: is it possible to make that active voice? It sounds awkward as is.
 * Under "Design", the images are all jumbled and overlapping on some displays I've viewed them with.
 * The second graf of "Production" could use to be tightened up. There's too much passive voice and excess wording ("this was because" --> "because").  --Coemgenus 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. I am a big admirer of the series of articles on American coins that you and Wehwalt have worked on most effectively. Sadly, I don't think this one is yet up to the standard set by the others. This may be because it has been brought here prematurely; I can see no PR or GA reviews, or evidence of talkpage discussion—yet in your nom statement you thank "all the reviewers for your hard work". I believe it needs considerably more work yet.
 * Lead


 * I would expect the opening sentence to tell me when the Gobrecht dollar was first minted, not simply that it was the first of its kind since 1806
 * The lead seems to be concerned with issues of detail rather than the broad general history of this coin. For example, there is no indication given of its lifespan. One could imagine, from reading this, that the coin was still being produced.
 * In fact, I learned more about the general history of this coin from your nom ststement than I did from the lead, which is not a good thing.
 * Images


 * For a relatively short article, this appears to be over-imaged. In particular the gallery inserted in mid-article is intrusive and in my view disproportionate.
 * Comprehensiveness


 * There seems to be basic information that needs clarifying in the text. How many Gobrecht dollars were struck? Over what period of years? How many are extant, and what sort of value do they have now?
 * The range of sources used seems quite limited, compared with those used in other coin articles, and I wonder if this is part of the problem.
 * Prose


 * I haven't done a complete prose check, but I did notice some phrasing that had me scratching my head. For example, I can't work out the distinction between medal alignment and coin alignment from your text.
 * I also saw some prose clumsiness: "hired on to"; "in order to" are examples.
 * "Patterson preferred a soaring eagle because he believed that the heraldic eagle commonly used on American coins, which he dismissed as a "mere creature of imagination", was both unappealing as a design." Sentence does not parse. The "both" towards the end is the problem". You should not consider these examples as the only prose issues; please check carefully for other problems.

I am unsure whether to recommend that this be withdrawn and worked on before returning here. I am sure that, given time, it can be raised to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honest feedback, and, looking over the article, I see what you mean. Regrettably, I haven't had as much time to devote to Wikipedia editing as I would like, so this article didn't get as much "polishing" as most of the articles have gotten by the time they get to FAC. I think it's best for me to withdraw this nomination for now, and use the two week waiting period to better prepare the article. Before I remove this, could I have your opinion on the makeshift gallery? I agree that it looks a little awkward and unseemly, but I'd like to work those images in somehow. If no one can think of any good way to do that, I'd be ok with removing them, but I do think they really add some interesting information to the article. I suppose I could just work in one obverse sketch from Sully and one reverse sketch from Peale, since that what would be the direct basis for the designs that were eventually adopted. By the way, by "reviewers" in my opening statement, I was referring to the future reviewers and commenters on this FAC. I usually leave some sort of note to that point in my opening statement to show that I appreciate the work of the reviewers, since I do so little of that myself. Anyway, thanks again for the review. I'll start work on the points you mentioned right away, and I'll also look for other areas that need improvement.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that, on balance, withdrawing is the right decision. On the gallery, in my view the text always claims precedence; images support the text, not the other way round. My advice is to concentrate during the next couple of weeks on getting the text right, which I imagine will involve some expansion. Decisions about the images can be made then, and I'll be happy to advise further at that time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll continue work on the article and eliminate the gallery, perhaps integrating a few of the images into the prose. I'm not sure if I can really expand the size of the article considerably beyond possibly the collecting sections, because the coin series was only produced for three years. That said, I'll dig a little deeper into my books and perhaps borrow a few new ones to help improve the quality.-RHM22 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry. I fully agree with Brian's comments above. It does seem, short, rushed, and incomplete compared to the other FAs in the genre. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.