Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seated Liberty 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 GrahamColm 17:19, 11 September 2012.

Seated Liberty dollar

 * Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The Seated Liberty dollar was struck for a third of a century, though never in large numbers. It was struck in response to deposits of silver by people and corporations. With a glut of silver about to hit the Mint, it was abolished, an action which became known as the Crime of '73 and which led to the great silver/gold debates of the late 19th century. Note that RHM22 is presently inactive, so I'll be handling this for us both. Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources review (no spotchecks possible):
 * Citation 50 requires p. not pp.
 * Coin World Almanac': It might be better to use the OCLC ref rather than the Amazon code. The OCLC per Worldcat for the 3rd edition (1977) is 4017981
 * In the bibliography, US states are given in their abbreviated form, except for Ohio. Maybe Ohio is never abbreviated, I don't know; but I thought I'd mention it.
 * "O." or "Oh.". As the full name is short enough, I did not see any reason to risk variants and so just gave the state its full name.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The bibliography is in small print - any reason? It makes us elderly folk peer a bit more than usual.

Other than the above minor issues, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Brian. I just the smallness. It's refbegin doing a foolish 90%. That really needs re-thinking. You can kill this in your prefs:
 * Gadgets->Appearance, and check:
 * "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists."
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The matters Brian brought up have been done. Thank you for the review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: I gave this article a going-over at its peer review. All seems in order with this latest instalment of a well established and always informative series. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and image check: Another fine article. I find no issues. Images are fine as they have the standard info and are all clearly PD. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: The article looks pretty good, seems up the the standard of coin featured articles. I made a few copyedits, hopefully all Ok. A few minor comments:
 * "Julian agreed, noting that the act instituted a de facto gold standard in the United States" Do we usually italicize "de facto"?
 * Some of the notes aren't complete sentences, so I don't think you need periods for them.
 * "the first to be issued were 2,303 pieces paid to a Mr. A. Wright on February 11, 1870." I think you might be able to remove "paid to a Mr. A. Wright" from the sentence, it seems a bit extraneous to me.
 * It helps to emphasize that the coin was not struck by the government on its own account, but in response to silver deposits, and it's a bit of color in an article which is shorter than my usual. I think it's worth the keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the last two paragraphs of "Later years" you have several of the same citations consecutively cited, you could probably remove some.
 * Check the placement of the letter citations (inside vs outside punctuation): "amidst the constellation irregularly dispersed of twenty-four stars[a]".[11]" & "after the completion of the transcontinental railroad[c]," vs "the designs would remain on those coins for over 50 years.[b][18][19]"
 * "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of them being struck." I'd suggest "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of their striking." but not a big deal.
 * "they could now only receive Trade dollars, with their limited legal tender status." I'd suggest "which had a" instead of "with their", again, minor issue.
 * "The Charlotte and Dahlonega mints only struck gold, catering to miners in the South seeking to deposit that metal" I'd suggest "who sought to" instead of "seeking to" here.
 * "The Mint acquired a portrait lathe in 1837, which allowed Gobrecht to work in large models for the later versions of the Gobrecht dollar, and for the Seated Liberty dollar, with the pantograph-like device mechanically reducing the design to a coin-size hub, from which working dies could be produced." This sentence feels a bit long to me, I'd suggest breaking it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except as noted, that is everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Alright, fixes and explanation look good, and I'm now willing to support, good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Delegate comments: I didn't notice any other issues. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed this ungrammatical sentence in a quotation: "The few pieces made for Asiatic and other foreign trade and are not seen in circulation." Please check against the original.
 * Nice to see you back, U! - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed thanks and wb.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


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