Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shield nickel/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 Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010.

Shield nickel

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. In a bit of a departure for me, I've written a couple of articles to improve the coverage of coins at Wikipedia, and this is the first of two or three. The Shield nickel was the first actual "nickel", struck from the same copper-nickel alloy that American nickels are today. The design had a troubled 17 year life before being replaced by the better known Liberty Head nickel. It is not a long article, but it is comprehensive. I'd like to thank Shield nickel expert Howard Spindel for the use of some of his images, and Connormah for his help in the image department as well. The article was peer reviewed before I brought it here.Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment— a dab link to escutcheon, no dead external links. Also, why is the "Shield" part capitalized in the article? Ucucha 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Shield nickel" or "Shield Nickel" is the proper name of the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a proper name, then I don't see why both words aren't capitalized. What do your sources use? Ucucha 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They use "Shield nickel". If you run a book search and disregard the auction catalogs, I would say a majority of books go that way, and David Bowers, who is probably the biggest name numismatic writer alive, goes with "Shield nickel".  Dab fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix and explanation. Ucucha 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - could you add some more content about varieties ? You haven't mentioned major varieties such as the 1866 double-punch (F-08) or the 1883/2 date. The proofs vary date by date in terms of the depth of the rim as well, and you might want to note that. It's a nice article, but I wouldn't support promoting it until it covers the varieties more thoroughly. Claritas § 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can do that, but it may take me a day or two. I'm trying to provide a balance between being geared for the nonspecialist and going into all the varieties (and the Shield nickel has many varieties).  I will add something probably by tomorrow night, please check back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. The only one which is really crucial to have on there is 1883/2, but there are plenty of other ones which are well known enough to mention, and I myself would prefer there to be an independent section on varieties. However, you're right that the article should be more geared towards non-specialists, so I wouldn't put too much focus on it. I can't remember which reference book you're using, but this site has a cross-reference table. There are five sub-varieties, but that's probably for a different article. Claritas § 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have Bowers with me, and Peters at home. Those are the main comprehensive book references.  I will indeed add a freestanding section on varieties and move the close 3/open 3 discussion into there.  While I would say shieldnickels.net is a reliable source as it is run by Spindel, I preferred not to get too deep into it, with unquestioned RS books available.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. You also need to add a note explaining where the figures for proof production came from (they're all estimates based on die usage/population ?). Your Peter/Bowers numbers are slightly different to those in the Red book, so I would make it clear that they're just estimates. I'd use "c. 1100" instead of "1100+", because the latter suggests that 1100 is a definite limit, whereas if all we've got are estimates, there could be a fair few less. Claritas §  16:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bowers discusses that, it should not be a problem. I believe the Mint started releasing the actual figures in the late 1870s, but will doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actual mintage figures released from 1878 onwards. Claritas § 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really stupid question: What were the technical difficulties that led to the design being abandoned? Is there something intrinsically more difficult about the shield design than the liberty head, such as the parallel stripes? I imagine this will be the first question to strike "non-coin" readers, given how ornate US coin designs are in comparison to most countries. – iride scent  20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The coins struck poorly, due in part to the hard planchet, but also due to the complex design. Under pressure, it was hard for the metal to flow to fill in the details, that is why they got rid of the rays.  This meant they had to strike the coins harder, and led to decreased die life.  And yes, the Liberty Head design wasn't as troublesome, and I've read in Taxay that the Buffalo nickel was even easier to strike.  I am not sure if the stripes played a part, I will look into it.  I will add something about this, also tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding File:James Barton Longacre-daguerreotype.jpg - I've corrected the sourcing, but this should be cropped. Frames are a no-no (see commons:COM:DW: they are separate works with copyrights independent of the picture itself and are 3D - like the embossing present here as well).  Rick Snow would need to license the work if 3D aspects are retained.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see what can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Connormah (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good; no image concerns. Эlcobbola  talk 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I like the new varieties section, but it would be better if you could write the quotation into your own words and then cite the source. Claritas § 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that now? I've expanded it further, but hesitate to go any longer lest it unbalance the article.  Note the proof information I've added.  I've also addressed Iridescent's concern, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great. I support promotion of the article in its current state. Claritas § 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the support. It is always great to win the support of someone knowledgeable about the field.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to support : I missed my chance to review this at PR, as it came to FAC like a rat up a drainpipe. It looks pretty good, but as usual I have some nitpicky prose issues:-
 * Lead
 * Successive sentences: "A silver half dime had been struck..." followed by "They disappeared..." Singular/plural disjunction, suggest: "Silver half dimes had been struck..." etc
 * "...the Mint was successful in introducing low-denomination coins..." Verbose? Why not "the Mint successfully introduced low-denomination coins..." (and no comma after "coins")?
 * (I think the comma should go, but maybe that's Britpunc.) Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Background and authorization
 * "in fact" in the first line looks redundant
 * I imagine "dismes" was pronounced "dimes", so saying they were originally "called" dismes makes no aural sense. Would it be better to say "originally spelt 'dismes'"?
 * For the benefit of us ignorami, could ".892 fine" and ".900 fine" be explained, perhaps in a footnote?
 * Better, but I would have preferred the information in percentage form - 89.2% and 90% are unequivocal and clear to everyone.
 * "...but more likely so that Wharton could sell more nickel." Surely such an assertion needs to be cited?
 * Design and production
 * "The crossed arrows symbolize nonaggression,..." Unless I've missed something, this is the first mention of crossed arrows, and I can't see them on any of the images, so I'm wondering where they are.
 * "Longacre proposed that the nickel be issued in aluminum". Does this mean that Longacre proposed that the nickel element be replaced by aluminum?
 * The sentence beginning "Numismatic historian Don Taxay..." is very long and could be rephrased and split.
 * in "the silver pieces continued to circulate in the West for the remainder of the 19th century, where silver or gold coins were preferred...", the word "where" refers to "the West", and the two phrases need to be brought closer together, by a slight rephrasing.
 * Replacement: "the Mint had already begun to begun to strike the shield design." Phrase repeated.

I imagine it will be the work of a few minutes to resolve these, after which I shall be happy to switch to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made those changes. Thank you.  Sorry about the haste to nominate, I see this one as a, er, pattern coin for a couple of other numismatic articles I would like to see make FA, and I was anxious to see reaction here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support after above issues all satisfactorily addressed. Looks like a new area is opening up for our esteemed polymath. Did Dief ever get his head on a coin? This might interest you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, Dief did not appear on a coin, the Canucks have not yet run a set of Prime Minister quarters.  I've seen tokens and so forth, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Taking all technical information on faith, as I know nothing about the topic. I can't think of any questions to ask. (Although I still don't understand how the shield design was more difficult to reproduce than the equally fiddly Seated Liberty coins, I'll take your word for it.) – iride scent  23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Copper-nickel is harder than silver, which is why you have collectors looking for "full step" Jefferson nickels even today.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.