Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint-Gaudens double eagle/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 02:55, 2 October 2010.

Saint-Gaudens double eagle

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Saint-Gaudens double eagle. Considered by many to be the most beautiful of US coins, the design now graces the American Eagle gold coin. It's not just about the coin, though, there was a bitter battle over the design between Teddy Roosevelt, a friend and supporter of Saint-Gaudens, and the longserving Mint Engraver, Charles Barber. Roosevelt won, sort of, but Barber got the last laugh in a way, as he had to repeatedly redesign the coin to make it strikeable after Saint-Gaudens died. Add to that the story of the 1933 double eagle, which has its own article but is briefly told here, and it's quite a tale. The second in my numismatic trilogy. Enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Images mostly look good, but File:Central Park Statue.JPG has nothing about the copyright status of the statue (if it's not PD, then neither is the photo) and File:2009 Ultra.jpg could do with a more specific licensing tag. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Aren't the sources used (what you call Bibliography) supposed to come after the footnotes (what you call references)? In the GTL, it says Bibliography can be confused with a list of printed works by the subject, which is exactly what I thought. See how how this is done in FA William_D._Boyce. I'm not sure how firm the rules re FAs are on this, but would like to hear your thoughts. In the Leach ref, you have no accessdate parameter, and Ca should be CA. In the very beginning, double eagle is a redirect. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts. None of the things you cite are worth arguing about, so I've changed them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: all sources & citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * Standardize the state abbreviations in the references.
 * What's the source for the list of mintages?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Standardized. On the mintages, all are from Yeoman except the 1907 Ultra High Relief, which Yeoman does not address.  If you see a better way of making the sourcing clear, I am very open to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: Engrossing stuff. I have a few prose queries, all easily fixable:-


 * "Congress interceded to require the motto's use." I don't think "interceded" is the best word. It implies acting as a mediator in a dispute. Would "intervened" be better?
 * "censorious postal agent" Should we use derogatory descriptions outside of attributed quotations? (encyclopedic neutrality)
 * That is a literal description of Comstock's job. He censored.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The models were brought to the Mint, where Barber took one look at them and rejected them." Too journalistic; just say Barber rejected them.
 * That is almost straight from the source but Barber is not exactly a favored character in the numismatic community so I'll go along.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Awkward prose (my suggested revisions indicated): "A second set of dies was produced with the relief reduced somewhat, but [this] still proved too high relief for practical coining, requiring [and required] three strokes of the press to fully bring out the design."
 * Also awkward: "Among other changes, Barber changed..." Make the second "altered"?
 * Shortly after this, two successive sentences begin with "Despite..."
 * I know AmEng doesn't generally approve of hyphens, but "reengraved" looks very odd indeed.
 * "The only major variety of the series..." Sounds odd; is "variety of" normal coinspeak? "Variation in" would read more normally.
 * Term of art.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Despite a mintage of almost 1.8 million pieces of the 1929 double eagle, it is estimated that fewer than 2,000 exist today." So what happened to them? Melted down, perhaps, but you need to say at this stage rather than later.
 * End of the series section, second para. I found this a bit difficult to follow: "examples could have been obtained from Mint Cashier Powell..." - clarify examples of what, and obtained by whom?

Rather a lot of pics, but it would be a shame to lose any of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I am much too tired now to deal with the ones I haven't commented on but they will have my attention in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with these things, but guess reengraved is ok as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go along, though I still don't like the verb "reengrave", any more than I would like "reenter" or "reenact", but maybe that is a European prejudice. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, as neither of those alternatives sound odd to me. However, I've changed "reengraved" to "modified".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support:  — Rlevse • Talk  • 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support A fascinating read which fully meets the FA criteria. My only suggestion is to make clearer in the caption Saint-Gaudens's rejected design for the World Columbian Exposition medal that it was the design for the reverse of the medal. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's now done. Thanks for the support.  Well, three supports, no opposes, I'm not aware of any extant concerns with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image check I have checked the images and they are all free - either US government work, or published before 1923 / work of artist dead long enough to be free. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Read the article from start to finish and made a few small tweaks to it. This is a fascinating read, as said earlier, well-deserving of the star.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of images bunched near the top, causing text squeeze-- can the images be re-arranged? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


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