Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peace 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 18:13, 1 May 2011.

Peace dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is the fourth in what will eventually be a ten-article topic about the Great Redesign of US coinage from 1907 to 1921, and it skips to the last denomination to be redesigned. The Peace dollar has never been the sexy silver dollar, that always seems to go to the Morgan dollar. Yet it was heavily struck in the 1920s and is familiar to anyone old enough to remember silver dollars circulating (and these days, that means you've been around a fair piece). It became controversial when its design was announced in 1921, and also when it was going to be restruck in the mid 1960s, otherwise its existence has been pretty quiet. Prior to its rename from "Peace Dollar", it was a former good article (still is, I guess) and it's had a recent peer review, which I just closed. I currently have a solo article, but it is pending promotion and is backlogged; Sandy kindly granted permission.Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Can you tell me a little bit about the decision to lowercase "dollar"? I'm not one of those grammarians who wields style guides like a club, but I'm just not seeing it.  The first 80 hits on a gsearch all either uppercased "dollar" in the snippet or led to a page that mostly uppercased "dollar".  The general rule on capitalization is that if you capitalize anything, then you have to capitalize enough to refer to a single thing ... so for instance, I get some significant hits on the capitalization "Loony dollar", because "Loony" all by itself is enough to specify what we're talking about.  "Peace" isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason that we don't capitalize the denomination is because all denominations are considered regular, and not proper nouns. Wehwalt will probably expand on that, though.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it. It's a straight grammar issue, to my mind.  All of the eight FAs on US coins adopt this convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some research. I've decided I really can't get by without the SOED (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), and that's on the way; I'll look it up when it gets here.  So far I can find support for "peace dollar" and "Peace Dollar", but not "Peace dollar". - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest deferring to terminology in the trade. See for example, here (Coin World has long been the leading coin weekly).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deferring to hobbyists for capitalization rules is always a bad idea. I'm not saying that hobbyists aren't as smart as we are, I'm saying that everyone discards nonessential information as they read, and for most people, that includes spelling, punctuation and capitalization details.  Errors (at least, "errors" as defined by style guides) proliferate especially among members of any special-interest community (including some pockets of academia) that don't submit their work routinely for professional copyediting and publication, because they're feeding off each others' mistakes.
 * The capitalization of for instance "Peace dollar" isn't a very important clue for specialists, because they're not going to use the capitalization to tell them what the proper noun is, that is, how they should refer to it; they'll pick that up from their reading. For the general reader, it's pretty important: the capitalization will provide their first impression on what to call the coin, and first impressions are important.  If we write "Peace dollar", we're saying that "Peace" is (per AP Stylebook) a "unique identification" or "integral part of the full name", but "dollar" isn't, meaning either that it's commonly called just "Peace" or that the second word varies ... "Peace coin" for instance.  Is that true?  I have no doubt that when coin hobbyists say "a Seated Liberty", they know exactly what they're talking about ... but the general reader doesn't, which is another reason we might need to capitalize differently in Wikipedia than they do.  Of course, the common names of most coins start with a proper name ("Eisenhower dollar"), so I can see how the tradition among hobbyists of capitalizing the first word got started.
 * What I did mainly was skim Chapter 8 of Chicago, which concerns mostly capitalization. I couldn't find a single example of a two-word phrase where both words were integral to the phrase and the first word was capitalized but the second word wasn't.  That (plus the fact that 0 out of the first 80 ghits support "Peace dollar") probably settles it for me, but I want to see what the SOED says. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. It's clear that "dollar" is not a proper noun in any case. A case could be made that "Peace" should be lowercase, but the dollar/Dollar bit has little merit to me. As far Coin World, I wouldn't agree that it should be ignored. Though it may be a hobby publication, it is largely written by people who are widely considered experts in their field. There are no degrees in numismatics (that I know of) like there are for zoologists or scientists, so the merits of an author can only be judged by determining how respected they are within the numismatic community. Personally, I believe the Numismatist to be the best numismatic publication currently in print, but Coin World is also very good and well respected. It's certainly not some garage-based magazine published by one person.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes it clear that "dollar" isn't a part of the proper noun? We don't write "Pennsylvania avenue". - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't general rules yield to specific usages in the field? I should add that I can trace similar usages back to 1922 anyway, see one of our sources here (to The Numismatist!), there are references to the "Buffalo nickel". We may slip into a debate about "proper" versus "common" usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't support "Peace dollar". Most of the hits are "Peace Dollar" or "peace", and of the remaining hits to "Peace dollar", most are quoting someone else, sometimes in letters and sometimes from meeting reports. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Red Book series of coin guides uses this usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm on board with "Peace dollar" now. I can't see the index of the Red Book (Redbook?) on Amazon, but I can see the index for Coin Collecting for Dummies, and the "Dummies" series generally has excellent copy editors. That index generally capitalizes the first part of coin names but not "dollar", "coin", etc.    I can see the reason: the names they're using vary quite a bit: "gold coin", "coin", "dollar", "piece" etc., and if that's the case, if the last word tends to vary, then it definitely shouldn't be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whew! Thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing. "The public believed ...": With no qualifier, this means something like "almost everyone".  But in the relevant section, it only says the Mint got a lot of angry letters.  Is that all we know, that there were a lot of angry letters? - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Editorials and letters.  The Mint and the rest of the Treasury basically panicked.  Would you be OK with "Many members of the public"?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of two "U.S."'s in titles that I can't change, those things are done to the best of my ability. No one is a perfect copyeditor for themselves; I will ask RHM22 to doublecheck to ensure I have not missed out any second commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Get any second commas please. For instance, in "Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew W. Mellon", either two commas or none would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency: US vs. U.S. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I could use some information from the source here: "[a]pparently, this was the first time that a coin collector ever wielded enough political clout to influence not only the Bureau of the Mint, but Congress as well". Is the first "a" capitalized in the source, and is there a period after "well"?
 * Yes and yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Unanimous Consent Calendar": my guess is it shouldn't be capitalized, but I'm not sure enough to change it.
 * Although this source from the House of Representatives calls it the "Consent Calendar" only, it is clearly capped.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "The sculptor based the design for the obverse design of the bust of Liberty on the features of his wife, Teresa de Francisci. Due to the short length of the competition, he lacked the time to hire a model with the features he envisioned for Liberty, and instead used his wife as a model."  Sounds repetitive.
 * I'll strike the final phrase from the last use of "and" onwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "radiate crown": Is this a translation of corona radiata, or do all the sources use this term? I wouldn't need a link for "radiant crown" since readers would take that at face value, but "radiate crown" probably needs a link. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but "radiate crown" is usually used to describe ancient coins. In ancient Roman times, it was common to place a radiate crown on the head of the emperor, probably to suggest divinity or some such thing. The term is rarely used to describe modern coins, but that's probably because the radiate crown is no longer a common design feature, at least not on American coins.-RHM22 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A link to the phrase in either Wikipedia or Wiktionary would work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there are any currently. Diadem would probably be the closest thing that we have a link to. "Radiant crown" is probably a better term, though, because it's accurate and more contemporary.-RHM22 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I interwiki linked to radiate as an adjective. It's probably properly an aureole, as that is the correct term for the rays of the Statue of Liberty, see that article (I can vouch for accuracy).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link (what's "wk:"?), and also linked directly to the "Adjective" subjection of the entry at Wiktionary. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "while modeling the design": while she was modeling, or while he was modeling something? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that sentence is unclear, but I will make a slight change for clarification.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You use "model" 3 times nearby in the sense of what the wife does, but the sentence structure suggests that he's the subject of the clause, so some readers will stumble. It's better not to make the same word do double-duty in such close proximity. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "a technician form Tiffany's": typo or [sic]?
 * I do not believe either. While that is not, of course, the formal name of the company, it is how it is commonly referred to.  Three words: Breakfast at Tiffany's.  I think a sic template would puzzle the reader and distract him from the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed form -> from. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, all that's left is the question about "model". - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you look at it again? I took out one of the uses of the word "model" that seemed unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See if you like what I did.


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for again giving a thorough review. I changed your final edit, I could give you a pedantic explanation but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Though I understand that my support might not mean much (I added a little bit of info and copyedited the article), I would like to add my support to this high quality article, which is another fine piece of numismatic prose, and my personal favorite dollar coin article.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I thank RHM22 and point out that each of his three FAs on dollars exceeds this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike two: I have two dollar coin FAs!-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Laser Brain is bound to promote soon, and then it will be three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No dabs, no dead links. Images check out with correct licenses and captions. Used to illustrate aspects of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Having now read the article several times, I am more than happy to support its promotion as I feel that it meets all of the FAC criteria. Sources are reliable, article is well referenced and the prose is very good. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Ref 15: is there a reason the title isn't italicized here?
 * Retrieval dates aren't required for print-based sources, but if you want to include them you should add one to ref 16
 * Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publisher or not, and if you do so whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Nice one; only saw a couple picky things...
 * Design: Is "a" or "the" missing from "and instead used his wife as model."?
 * The sentence "Baker approved the designs, subject to these changes" is missing a period at the end.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those things are done, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – Writing, sources, etc. all look good. Another in the series of fine coin articles that have been seen at FAC recently. I hope there's more coming in the future.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments : another absorbing numismatic article. Some minor issues (mainly prose), and clarification requests:-
 * "The Peace dollar was approved in December 1921..." It's not clear who approved it.
 * "Idea and regeneration" section, second sentence. The words "In the article" are unnecessary; omitting them avoids three successive sentences beginning "In..."
 * "...favored the use of the silver dollar, as that coin had the most room for an artistic design." Not sure what is meant by "most room"; is it just that the silver dollar was a larger coin than others?
 * Superfluous comma after the word "supportive"
 * It's not clear why unanimous Congressional sent was sought or required. Why not a majority?
 * Vestal sought, unsuccessfully, to use an expedited procedure for noncontroversial bills. It isn't clear why Mann had a problem with it, no one really knows and Mann died soon after.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "...before they are approved by the Treasury Secretary" → "...before approval by the Treasury Secretary" (Smoother, avoids tenses conflict)
 * "President Harding was about to formally declare the war with Germany at an end" That reads a bit clumsily; could it be: "President Harding was about to make a formal declaration of the end of the war with Germany"?
 * Do we need the editorial comment: "Events thereafter moved swiftly forward"?
 * "Fraser notified the participants..." Add the words: "in the competition".
 * I'm not sure the Maine dollar image is really worthy of its place. And it leads to squeezing of the text.
 * You are referring to both Mr and Mrs De Francisci as "De Francisci" in close proximity, which is confusing
 * "...it mentioned no removal, but simply stated that the broken sword which had appeared on de Francisci's alternate reverse would not appear on the issued coin." Er, isn't that mentioning a removal?
 * The public did not see the original approved design (that is, the present coin with the broken coin inserted) until long after anyone cared but numismatists. As the announced description was so vague it fit either the approved design or De Francisci's alternate reverse, they avoided admitting a mistake by hinting that a mistake had been made in the announcement.  It fooled Zerbe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence entirely defeated me; can it be simplified? "The models he prepared were reduced to coin size using the Mint's Janvier reducing lathe, although even after fifteen years of possessing the pantograph-like device, the Mint had no expert in its use on staff."
 * Re "GOD": "only the one word was done." Does this mean "only the one word was boldened"?
 * To avoid charges that the article is "eastern-seaboard-centric", perhaps the sentence "Except in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money, the Peace dollar saw little circulation" could be rephrased in positive rather than negative terms,e.g: "The Peace dollar circulated mainly in the Western United States, where coins were preferred over paper money; it saw little circulation elsewhere". (You would then need to rephrase the start of the following sentence).
 * The Peace dollar is referred to as "it" and "they" in successsive sentences.
 * "Production resumed in 1934, due to another congressional act; this one required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." "Due to", the semicolon, and "this one" are inelegant; suggest: "Production resumed in 1934, after a new congressional act required the Mint to purchase large quantities of domestic silver, a commodity whose price was at a historic low." Smoooooth.
 * "...his successor, Henry H. Fowler was immediately questioned by Mansfield about the dollars, and assured the senator that things would be worked out to his satisfaction." Grammatically, this requires a "he" before "assured".
 * "However, they have been privately restruck using new dies and genuine, earlier-date Peace dollars." Meaning unclear; does it mean "new dies based on genuine..." etc?
 * What does "clad composition" mean?

I will be happy to support when these are resolved. Can you ping when ready, as my attention is a bit divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've completed all of these except where quibbled. Regarding the lathe, I've rephrased, but the concept is simple.  The Mint has to get to a plaster model such as de Francisci and Baker are holding, usually about eleven inches in diameter, to a coin-sized piece of steel from which a master die can be made.  The lathe traces the plaster model and delivers equivalent cuts to a piece of mild steel which is then hardened.  From what I read, it requires a very fine touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still a few phrasings I'd have preferred to see amended, but they are not critical. Overall the article reads crisply and professionally. Support registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are any you feel strongly about, drop me a line. Thanks to the reviewers and supporters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they're matters of personal choice/style. You're entitled to disagree, Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a second look anyway, once the rush slows down.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at the newly-created Coinage (United States coin) and make sure it meshes with the other content in the article especially, the succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to delete the succession box here, I don't see what good it adds.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to butt in, but would it be possible to leave the succession box in the article? All the other dollar coin articles have one as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything's possible, as long as I don't get caught between reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone suggests you remove it, that's no big deal. I don't think it's really crucial in any of the articles.-RHM22 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checking back in. Deleting infoboxes for currency articles seems nonsensical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realize, I misread above. I thought you were going to remove the infobox. Yes I believe succession boxes that are totally redundant with infoboxes should be removed. I would prefer it be removed, but am not sure about why wants it kept. I apologize for misreading above.  Not sure if that is what you are interpreting as conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not interpreting that as conflict. Perchance our other heated discussions might be interpreted as same?  Do you want to withdraw the word "nonsensical" now?  It is unlikely that you will draw RHM22, whose position you described as such, into this dispute, he has shown himself too level-headed, but still it might be a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You cherrypicking your GA reviewer is not what I call a conflict, but I already stated I misread your 22:35, 21 April 2011 response and my 21:47, 25 April 2011 (timestamp duplicated above now) statement about deleting infoboxes is moot. I have two real editorial issues that I am putting forth that would be worth getting back to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason for wanting the succession box kept is because that all my dollar coin articles have them, and I would like to keep them all uniform for my upcoming featured topic. It's not really a big deal though, so I would not object outright to removing them.-RHM22 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to remove them in all of the articles. It is pretty common to remove succession boxes that are redundant with navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm also concerned about consistency. Part of my concerns with Tony's demands are that both affect the consistency of this article with others and really should be addressed to a broader audience.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am making no suggestion to this article that is not for the benefit of a WP:FT. I would encourage entire topics to follow each suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, could you state in the LEAD that this coin upheld the tradition of U.S. silver dollar coins being 38.1 diameter. Something like "this coin upheld the tradition dating back through x different mintings of US silver dollar coins that dates back to YYYY of a 38.1 diameter."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout, Tony, it's bad enough with the conflict we've been engaged in over the past 36 hours without you coming here and shouting. You state no rationale for the proposed change, but you come here and shout at me.  Why are you here, within hours of conflict with me?  It seems a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to the diff where I was shouting. I think that it is important to state that this currency is consistent in size with historical silver dollars, more recent dollar coins are different sized and a 21st century readers need to know that this was once the longstanding size of a dollar coin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I think I have to ask for guidance from the delegates and community. It seems to me that Tony's first change would be utterly ill advised, and what is more he knows it. There is also a very serious WP:COI issue here, it strikes me that it is very much open to question whether Tony is editing here to improve the encyclopedia, or to advance a personal conflict. The fact that he has begun a substantive review here with conflict running high speaks for itself (notifying about a template is not a review). I would welcome guidance from the community and delegates.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I was not a collector in the 1965 era that you mention had a silver bullion runup (since I was born in 1965). Is this a linkable runup?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the COI? I am making pretty run of the mill editorial suggestions. Not sure what the big deal is?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "he knows it" Are you instigating. at both 21:47, 25 April 2011 and 02:35, 26 April 2011 I stated a sincere interest in clearing up for the reader who for the last 33 years has been seeing smaller dollar coins that this was once the longstanding common dollar coin size. It is a pretty simple statement. No I don't know it is utterly ridiculous to clear up this point because it is perfectly logical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've confirmed the conflict. Thanks.  I'm not going to turn this FAC into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a conflict.  The existence of the conflict is sufficent.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we both take a step back to allow for other comments before this escalates out of control, if it hasn't already.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one seems to want to touch this one, and honestly I can't blame them. Very well.  To minimize disruption to the project, I will reply to Tony's points:


 * I do not think it appropriate to add the proposed text to the lede, or indeed to the body. The text might be more appropriate in the dollar coin article, which will pass through FAC at some point as I believe a featured topic is contemplated here.  Very little of it has anything to do with the Peace dollar in particular.  Note that the infobox says that the coin is 38.1 mm in diameter, which I think should put any readers unfamiliar with the older dollars on notice.  Kids today speak at least some metric.  See also WP:LEAD SECTION. Incidentally, the Peace dollar, so that people know what the blanks are to fill in, in Tony's proposed text, is that it was the fourth series to have a 38.10 measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace); Eisenhower was the fifth and final.  That can be sourced to the various pages on the Coin World web site which has the specs, see for example here, and silver dollars of that measurement were produced beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978.  I should add that the three present FAs on dollars, none of which I wrote, do not contain any similar text.
 * Discussing only the merits of the argument and leaving out any personal issues. I think all individual dollar articles would be improved by a phrase. "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978." Then, subsequent series  "This was the nth of three series of dollar coins to have a X measurement (Sacajawea, etc.) beginning in 1979 and continuing to the present." Meanwhile gold dollar coins could say "measuring Xmm (concurrently with silver dollars measuring 38.10 mm),. . ."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a good link for the coin shortage/silver rise of 1963–1966. Perhaps, Tony, you would care to write one?  Sounds like a Four Award to me!  As that is so, I can't link to an article not yet in existence.  It would be incredibly valuable for Kennedy half dollar, whose early career is closely tied to those events.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is rare where the nominator says to the reviewer, "You stub out x topic". All 21st century silver coin articles could benefit from the 63-66 and 79-80 silver run articles. Basically, what you are saying is that I am working on a bunch of articles that are all trending toward WP:FT status that could benefit from articles on a couple of topics, but I am unwilling to stub them out because the supporting articles are not really important enough to any single one of them to necessitate such an effort. Basically, people doing the silver coinage article FTs are the last hope for WP to have at least stubs for this topic. If you guys don't do it, who will?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Placeholder for overlooked discussion on merging/deleting succession boxes
 * Can you offer some cogent commentary on whether the succession boxes warrant keeping. I personally think not, but we need to hash things out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would write an economics article well, nor am I aware of any requirement for a FA that an affiliated article exist and I am reluctant to set a precedent. I care not about the succession boxes, whatever reviewers want is fine.  As these raise broader issues affecting other numismatics article, it might be best to discuss them with a broader audience, perhaps at the Wikiproject talk page. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What WP needs is a basic stub of two to three sentences on each so that the reader knows what happened and when. Something like X was a silver price bubble that occurred from Month YYYY to Month YYYY. It was caused by Event Y. It concluded when event Z occurred.  Throw in maybe two refs and find some good cats.  I think you have the resources and ability to do that.  Then all the silver coin articles will have something to link to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a really good five cent cigar. Thanks for the advice.  As I accumulate more sources for the remaining coins (dime, quarter, both silver so I am hopeful) I will try to spin that off.  A DYK never hurt anyone ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your inexplicable resistance to adding "This was the nth of five series of silver dollars to have a 38.10 mm measurement (Seated Liberty, Trade, Morgan, and Peace prior and Eisenhower after) beginning in 1840 and ending in 1978.", I am considering opposing unless you can give me a cogent reason why this would not help the 21st century reader who has not seen a coin of this size in over 3 decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are done with your review, and are not minded to oppose otherwise, I am open to put some version of that into the body of the article in an effort to find a compromise. Note that sometimes compromises aren't reached.  Something like "In common with all silver and copper-nickel dollar coins struck from 1840 to 1978, the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm), larger than the Mint's subsequently-struck dollars."  With appropriate citing.  I'll find a place for it, maybe in production.  By the way, you're misapplying the term silver dollar, as the circulating Eisenhower was not made of silver.  If you find that acceptable, I will make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not really call my participation a review. Your phrasing is pretty good. However, I think instead of "the Peace dollar had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)" each of the 5 coin series should include the statement "the X dollar was the nth of 5 series that had a diameter of 1.5 inches (38.10 mm)". I think the content should be both in the body and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that saying how many series there are of 38.1 mm dollars and where the Peace stands in that is helpful to the reader, nor indeed to I believe that coin series are counted and compared in such a manner. If you have serious coin sources that do count in that way, I will be glad to look them over. And not everything can be in the lede, though I might consider adding some small part of the wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K. How about just changing "the coin resulted from" to "the 1.5-inch (38.10-mm) coin resulted from" in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is done. It is 11 pm right now and the sentence for the body involves tricky referencing, I may not finish tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the LEAD say 38 and the text say 38.1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony just deleted my response to Dank above, see here. What is going on? I've reverted but jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a browser crash edit conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I believe that Wehwalt thought Tony was shouting because of his capitalization of the word "lead". I think Tony was capitalizing "lead" because the Wikipedia shortcut, WP:LEAD is capitalized.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. Anyway, I've cleaned up whatever was the problem with my last edit.  When I get a chance to consult my copy of Breen, I may be able to make for a less awkward reference, although it is not unuseful for the reader to have these links at his fingertips.  Mayhap one of the Bowers guides has a nice account of the silver crisis, if the ones I have now do not, I need to get the quarters one.  Anyway, I think that's that.  Five supports, all checks done, all the blood's been cleaned up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for some late extras, Farran Zerbe was only linked in the caption, but his name is unlinked in the text. Also, why isn't Denver Mint linked in the text. Paper currency, bullion and silver bullion are never linked in the article although they all link to redirects. Do they point to places we want the reader to find?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zerbe and Denver Mint should be linked and I will do so forthwith. I think we can settle for just bullion; perhaps I will pipe it to silver bullion.  Paper currency I feel needs no link in a 21st century world.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zerbe was already linked, and not recently so that is moot. I did a pipe to bullion, as the silver bullion article is actually a redirect to silver coin.  I linked Denver and San Francisco mints.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do the Trade dollar (United States coin) and Peace dollar, which are both at FAC have different infobox formatting. One uses two parenthesis to increase the detail and the other doesn't--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, because different people wrote them? Which field are we talking about here?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at em. A bunch. (mass, diameter, composition). Can the Numsimatics project coordinate a format. I think the Peace dollar should add info to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only difference I see is that Peace dollar doesn't use any Imperial units. I feel the user has limited use for grains.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not ust a two article issue. All coins should either use or not use imperial units.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we're making a project of this, RHM22 and I will coordinate to ensure consistency as we improve the articles. In fact, we were discussing a change to the infobox only last night.  I am afraid there is not really a Wikiproject to deal with here, we have two editors working to improve articles, plus I should mention Bobby131313 has been a godsend with his images.  Pretty nice, aren't they?  I will check over my FAs for consistency and we will strive to keep it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two active content editors and an image guy is a WikiProject. Many projects only really have three people. Neither WP:FOUR nor WP:CHICAGO has a lot of folks, but they are both active.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm poking through the coinage FAs making infobox changes. There are a couple of points I need to discuss with RHM22, but it's happening.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is important right now is that these two be formatted the same. The others can wait til the FT, as far as I am concerned.  I just don't think we should be passing two related articles that look different on first blush.  Although I have not read a coin magazine in 25 years, I am willing to give an opinion if you two disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put a "value" field in Trade Dollar, but RHM22 may have been trying to note that the coin was not always a legal tender by not having one. So he may remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, article reads very well, and is in good shape. It seems to me that the 38.1 mm issue raised by Tony is a good thing to add to the body of article, but it is utterly irrelevant for the lede, so don't put it there. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I took the liberty and made a few edits rather than list tedious nit-picks here. No doubt the nominator will check them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


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