Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gold 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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Gold dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about… a coin issued for forty years, which served an important purpose in the first few years. It has left us with a small, rather beautiful coin, and its abolition led to a shift in a custom as it was often given as a Christmas gift, and when they stopped making them, the smallest remaining gold coin, the quarter eagle ($2.50) was given instead, and presumably the recipients didn't mind the substitution! Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * No DABs.
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * You describe the coins before telling the reader anything about the different types. Not exactly sure how to resolve the issue, but either provide more info about the different types in the description section or break up the modifications section.
 * I've undertaken a mild restructuring to make that work.


 * Be sure to tell the reader exactly how small the coin was early in the main body. They shouldn't have to look in the infobox for the info.
 * I've put it in.


 * What's a circulation strike?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've massaged that out. That's everything I think, if you like the restructuring.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco 1492
 * both a gold dollar and one of silver, - wouldn't "both a gold dollar and silver one" or "both a gold and silver dollar" work better, and be more consistent?
 * United States Mint|Mint of the United States - why the piping? Is United States Mint an issue?
 * I've been fiddling with this one. Mint of the United States was the formal term until 1873, US Bureau of the Mint from 1873 to sometime in the 1980s, and United States Mint since then.  I'm being pedantic.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * pattern dollar - is this the common term for a pattern strike of a dollar coin?
 * Yes, especially since it is fully described to the reader just previously. "Pattern dollar" would mean an experimental type of dollar in numismatic parlance.
 * Just a comment "including some with a square hole in the middle.", like old Chinese coins... did any American coins actually have holes in them?
 * No. Just experimental ones never officially issued.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * he had no one to assist - this could be read he had no one he could assist, or he had no one who could assist him. Perhaps another wording?
 * Second paragraph in "Preparation" - Cited to Taxay as well?
 * a coronet or tiara above her head, - on or above?
 * More recently, - I think 150 years later is a bit more than just "more recently"
 * Images are all okay, PD for the coins and painting, CC-BY-SA for the photographs of the coins.
 * More tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Longacre's diary notes state that the first gold dollars were struck from his dies on May 8, 1849; Mint records indicate the first were produced the previous day. - Why not present the Mint records first then Longacre's personal notes? Would fit with chronology too.
 * resemble various of the types issued from Philadelphia, - feels like you're missing a noun
 * I'm not sure where. Possibly you mean following "various".  I think it's OK to omit a noun, since it's clear what we are talking about.
 * "Various of the" (use of various as a pronoun), according to Oxford Dictionaries, is colloquial and an Americanism. Garner's Modern American Usage (2009 edition) writes that it "cannot be considered good usage". As such, I think a more variant-neutral and formal phrasing may be required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is Modifications the best title for the section?
 * I try to standardize the subject headings, see for example Standing Liberty quarter


 * Both narrowing and Native American were appropriated for the gold dollar, which was made thinner, and thus wider. - not quite following this sentence
 * weakness - seems to be a bit of a jargony use. Link?
 * Rewritten instead.

Interesting enough read, I think. Good job, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Venus Accroupie or "Crouching Venus" - what's with the mixed italics and quotes?
 * Indian princess is (red)linked twice.
 * Gold coins to the value of $6 were put aside for assay. - I'm not clear on this. $6 worth of coins, or coins worth $6 individually?
 * Link to Civil War comes a bit late, I think. Could it be placed earlier?
 * Until 1879, gold pieces did not circulate at face value except on the West Coast, - repetition of information
 * It had been anticipated that the public, on the resumption of specie payments, would use the gold dollar and other small gold coins, but the public, allowed to redeem paper currency, continued to use it as more convenient than coins. - many clauses; suggest splitting
 * Thanks. Unless I've noted it, I've gotten to the ones I did not reply to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything but one addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which?
 * Various as a pronoun (see references to Oxford and Garner's above) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some" substituted, though I will mull over a better way. All done, I think.  Thank you for the fine review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and images. Another fantastic coin article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox appear to be unsourced
 * Sourced now. I view the data in the infobox like the lede, if it's sourced in the body, you don't have to source it in the infobox.  I've added a source.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
 * I've changed it so it is clearly by year.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is Bowers' name linked thrice but unlinked the fourth time? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a side issue of the previous one and it's also fixed. I've added the authorlink field to the 2011 source. Thank you for the review, I think I've gotten all of that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Support with a few fairly minor prose quibbles:
 * "they would be unasked-for at the Mint" – odd phrasing. I doubt that "unasked-for" exists as a word. "They would not be asked for" is the orthodox form
 * Done in slightly different form.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "the two coins were wanted by the public". Can you clarify what the other coin was, aside from the dollar? If it is the $20 coin,  mentioned briefly in the second paragraph, this needs to be specified.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "he promptly apprised Patterson..." – advise use name rather than pronoun: "Longacre advised Patterson…"


 * It is not immediately obvious who is speaking in the quote that ends the "Preparation" section
 * "The Type 1 gold dollar depicts a head of Liberty, facing left, with a coronet or tiara on her head, bearing her name". The final comma introduces a slight ambiguity on the location of the name, and would be better removed.
 * Caption for three-dollar image: should this read: "Longacre's designs for the three-dollar piece (above) was adapted for the Types 2 and 3 gold dollar?
 * Done, though it is fairly conventional to refer to a coin in that manner, most of the chapter headings in Breen do that. Three matters preceding also done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I may have raised this before in other coin articles, but is there a reason why you refer to an "Indian princess" (redlinked) in the "Modifications" section and a "Native American princess" (unlinked) in the following section?
 * Crisco convinced me the Indian princess could result in an article, and that seems to be the more conventional term.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Where is Dahonlega? (I gather from later reading that it's in Georgia, but perhaps this should be explicit at first mention.
 * As the only town given a mint under the 1835 act that lacks an NFL franchise, I've clarified. I think the ones that have an NFL franchise are sufficiently known not to need similar disambiguation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "...of which roughly a hundred are known" – this evidently refers to the Dahlonega batch, not the whole issue, though comma placement again creates an ambiguity. I assume that "known" means "known to still exist"?
 * Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "though what was done with them there and their ultimate fate are unknown" – needs more punctuation: "though what was done with them there, and their ultimate fate, are unknown."
 * "The rarity of the 1861-D dollar, and the association with the Confederacy, makes it especially prized." Verb should be plural (two separate subjects).
 * "The Civil War shook public confidence in the Union..." Perhaps "The outbreak of the Civil War shook public confidence in the Union..."
 * Previous three all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "plus" doesn't read well in prose; "and" would be better
 * Not sure where this is. May have been massaged out?
 * "Final years", third line. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "which did not in fact occur" → "which did not occur"
 * "found its place in commerce lost" → "lost its place in commerce".
 * Done in a slightly different way. Previous one also done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The dollars were damaged in the process..." – presumably some, not all?
 * Added "often". I just haven't seen enough on this to know exactly what was being done to them.

Solid work, great research and attention to detail as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I will review comments and get back shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All done, one minor question raised above. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- As the interest in this seems to have slackened off, I'm about ready to promote it but one point first... While scanning for duplinks I noticed you seem to not only link James B. Longacre twice in successive sections but in effect to introduce him twice as "Chief Engraver" and "successor to Gobrecht", so you may want to rationalise that. Also, is capitalising "Chief Engraver" in one instance but not in another deliberate, like it's a title in one case but simply a position in the other? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked the issues you mention above over, and I think they are OK, though I am not wedded to them. The only time Chief Engraver is capitalized, but not used as a title, is when I put it in quotation marks. I think that is OK.  Regarding Longacre, I sometimes link twice when the first link is offhand and the reader might not see it, and then there would be no link where I think the reader expects it.  Let me know if you still have a query.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the same linking issue too, but it's no biggie to me either...that section isn't flashing blue-line-heavy anyway.--MONGO 21:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for looking at that. If that's resolved ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think it's black-and-white, and we have a second opinion in favour of leaving as is, so no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support advancing this to FA. Experienced FA writer and reviewers above have covered the very few issues. Nice work!--MONGO 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.