Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Head gold pieces/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 Ucucha 15:58, 23 November 2011.

Indian Head gold pieces

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. These gold coins were the only ones the US has ever done which have the design lowered below the surface of the coin. The eighth in my nine-article series on the Great Redesign of US coins from 1907 to 1921. It contains the usual snafus behind the scenes at the Mint, an increasingly irritated Theodore Roosevelt, and perhaps the most plaintive comment ever by an artist who has had his design "improved" by the Mint. Enjoy. One note, I will have limited Internet access from October 29 to November 13, so don't be alarmed if it takes me a day or three to get back to people, it will still be done.Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No citations to Garrett & Guth
 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Be consistent in how editions are notated
 * Why identify state for NYC but not San Fran? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor glitches that I will clean up in a bit. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those things are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "The two pieces were struck until World War I caused gold to vanish from circulation". Would flow better with "and" after World War I.
 * Do you mean right after the words "World War I"? Are you sure?  That makes it "The two pieces were struck until World War I and caused gold to vanish from circulation"  A bit odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Didn't read that the right way.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Inception: "stating that it would be difficult to put all the legends, such as the name of the country that were required by law on the new pieces—on the double eagle." The use of the dash doesn't make much sense, unless another one was placed earlier in the sentence. In this case, I think a comma works best.
 * Innovation: A redundancy is in "Such designs would have the designs...". Double "design" there. See if one of them can be changed.
 * Period needed after "subject to minor changes requested by the Mint".
 * Ref 9 should have pp. for the page range, not p., since it's a multi-page cite.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support subject to a few quibbles, below. We are coming to the end of this US coins series. I have reviewed most of them, and the dramatis personae are becoming like old friends. I shall miss them all.
 * Still one yet.


 * There's another repeat of "design" in the first paragraph: "The pieces, the only US circulating coins with recessed designs, are identical in design." I am sure that this can be rephrased.
 * That sentence sounds as if these coins are still circulating, which they are surely not? Also, the recessed aspect of the coins is scarcely mentioned in the article, and I am not clear why this had to be adopted, nor why recessed designs were evidently never used again.
 * It was adopted because President Roosevelt wanted it adopted. He got his way.  As for why they weren't used again, I've got an interview with Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce from 1915 in which he says that they tended to accumulate dirt, as Chapman predicted.  Joyce discusses all of the redesigned coins up to that point (the gold pieces, the cent, and the nickel) and makes it clear they were all problematical.  While the Great Redesign led to beautiful coins, all of them were a problem for the Mint to strike, even years after the fact.  Perhaps the Mercury dime was OK, that has a pretty smooth career.


 * "That" for "which" in lead second paragraph?
 * "After considerable difficulties, the Mint was successful in issuing..." Perhaps "successfully issued", or even just "issued" (could there be such a thing as an unsuccessful issue)?
 * Tiny point, but "On November 28, 1907, Treasury Secretary George Cortelyou noted that..." Noted in a report, letter, diary, or however?
 * The collective terms for arrows is "quiver", not "bunch"
 * Bunch seems acceptable, see here. Quiver seems the formal name for the container.  It's not obvious to me that the arrows are even bound together.


 * I mentioned in the PR a tendency to overlong sentences. Here's one that got away: "Although Saint-Gaudens's design for the eagle had featured Liberty in an Indian-style headdress, no attempt was made to make her features appear to be Native American, and according to numismatist Mike Fuljenz in his book on early 20th century American gold coinage, the obverse of the eagle had featured Lady Liberty topped with a fanciful head covering designed to look like an Indian headdress." I think there is a natural break after "Native American".
 * "...and suggests that Pratt's eagle, before it was modified by Barber, was "worthy of J.J. Audubon" - what did Breen mean by this?
 * I gather, that it was as handsome as an Audubon print.


 * Last paragraph: If you are giving present-day values, these need to be date-referenced. In, say, 10 years' time, that $2,850 may be wholly obsolete.

No major issues here, I think. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except as noted, those things are done. Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Pratt_plaster_models.png: does PD-US apply to both the models and the photo?
 * File:Frank_A_Leach.jpg: page? Also, while not required, it would be preferable to actually type out the bibliographic info rather than just have the link
 * Prefacing this comment with a note that this isn't actionable...I don't like the size comparison based on US coins. A non-American has no idea what that represents (I can figure it out based on Canadian coins, but in general that comparison doesn't work). A scale or ruler would be more universal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will work on these later in the day or tomorrow. Thank you for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done the first two ... on balance I think the image is helpful to the reader, that is the size comparison image. This may also touch on Tim's comment below on the "approximate size"  After all, an illustration speaks loud, and

Support. Though not, in the ordinary way of things, much of a one for numismatics, I have found this article and the others in Wehwalt's suite of articles, a splendid read as well as authoritative and excellently illustrated and documented. I have no doubt at all that it meets the FAC criteria. A few comments on minor matters of prose etc; none of these affects my support.
 * Inception
 * For the benefit of non-Americans I think perhaps "nickel" and "dime" might usefully be Wikilinked, and I wonder if giving the approximate size of the relevant coins might be helpful to us aliens.
 * Saint-Gaudens – here and passim you have three versions of his possessive: Saint-Gaudens's, Saint-Gaudens' and Saint-Gauden's. The last is plainly wrong, and I hesitate to express a preference between the first two, but they should be consistent throughout.
 * Innovation
 * It may just be my screen (laptop, wide-ish) but there's a three inch gap of white space between "Leach recalled in his memoirs:" and the start of the quote.
 * Production, circulation, and collecting
 * "…the mints in Denver and San Francisco; both western mints…" – The western mints, presumably, being those at Denver and San Francisco, but this assumes a familiarity with US geography that not all your readers may have. Perhaps something like. "the western mints in Denver and San Francisco; both of those mints…"
 * I will play with it. I am trying to avoid the term "branch mints", which was not correct but is sometimes used.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of this is not to establish they are in the west, but rather to just come up with a collective term which includes Denver and SF but does not include Phila.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A common use of the small gold pieces were as Christmas presents – singular verb needed here
 * World War I – I believe we no longer routinely blue-link it, but I can't quote chapter and verse and I may be mistaken
 * I think it may have some use.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my meagre haul of prose quibbles, none of them of much consequence. I look forward to seeing this top-notch article on the front page in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments :


 * Why link President of the United States in the first body paragraph, but not in the lede? I thought the first instance made more sense.
 * In "Inception", "It was originally thought that..." sounds odd to me. I accept that passive voice is sometimes acceptable, but wouldn't something like "Mint officials originally thought that..." sound better?
 * I changed it to "assumed" They took it for granted, really, because that was the precedent.


 * In the next sentence, I think "However, in May 1907..." could be better as "In May 1907, however,...". That could be just a matter of opinion, so disregard it if you want.
 * In "Innovation", the phrase "a local sculptor (who proved to be Bela Pratt)" might be tighter as "a local sculptor, Bela Pratt,".
 * I changed a few "which"s to "that"s throughout. I think I'm right, but revert if it changes the meaning somehow.
 * Other than these minor quibbles, the article is excellent. I got a double eagle as a graduation gift and it is among my most prized possessions (and worth a good deal more these days than back then!)  Look forward to supporting.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be catching up on work all day. I have one too, it sits in my safe deposit box!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "a month which saw Saint-Gaudens's death from cancer": This is mostly my OR, but your connotation for "see" isn't a common one. "see" in this sense means (per M-W) "be the setting or time of", and their example is "the last fifty years have seen a sweeping revolution in science".  Use "see" when you want to shift the reader's focus to a significant time period. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:Checklist.
 * Thank you to Dank, Coemgenus, and Tim Riley for recent reviews. I will work through these and any additional comments by tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will review the checklist. All else is done or explained.  Thank you all.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lady Liberty topped ...": missing end quotation marks; I guessed where they should go.
 * "Breen suggests the sunken surfaces of the coins used a similar technique to certain coins of Egypt's Fourth Dynasty": Will it mean roughly the same thing if we omit "technique"? Maybe: "Breen suggests the sunken surfaces were similar to those on coins from Egypt's Fourth Dynasty"
 * A little more: are you saying the the coins looked similar in some way, or are you saying that they were made by similar methods? What similar methods? - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I really think Breen means they looked the same.  The Mint was a very efficient enterprise; their works did not resemble the primitive hand presses of the ancient world.
 * I made the change. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and the thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In summary, I don't see any present barriers to promotion. The two images needed mild tweaking in the descriptions, and the delegate can easily double check that if Nikki does not return in time to give a full thumbs up. (the third was not actionable).  This will be eight down, one to go on the Great Redesign.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


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