Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three-dollar piece/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

Three-dollar piece

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The three-dollar piece is a bit of an oddball in American numismatics, and why there was one and why they kept it 35 years is a bit uncertain. Perhaps it is not quite as queer as a three-dollar bill, but it's getting there. This is another fruit of my research and photography at the American Numismatic Association Library and Museum in January, my thanks for their courtesy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * near-identical -> perhaps "nearly identitical"
 * Longacre's models, both for the obverse and reverse, did not have lettering on them, as the legends and numbers were to be punched once a reduction was made from the large models. - Repetition of models, suggest cutting "from ... models".
 * Julian believes that there were no later restrikes, but that pieces held by the Mint in anticipation of demand were obtained surreptitiously by employees in exchange for common-date issues before the proof pieces would have been melted, and were not included in official mintage figures. The proof-only pieces were available to the public only as part of a proof set of all gold denominations, at a price of $43. - that first sentence is making my head spin. Also, you have "proof" four times in two sentences. Couldn't "would have been" be changed to "were"?


 * Fantastic article, and great work on an obscure piece that most people have never heard of. I'd give you an image review but as I uploaded nearly all of them there may be a conflict of interest there. I think they are all fine, for what it's worth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Got those, thanks for all your work on this one, you've been in since I was at the museum. I'll forgive you the images, which should be simple, all the images are of coins or medals and I took them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. Solid, interesting article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Title for Bowers et al should use endash not emdash
 * Whitman Publishing or Whitman Publishing LLC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. A few minor comments:
 * Final words to lead: "only one is known". Does this mean "only one is known to have been struck", or "only one is known still to exist"?
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised before the question of terms such as "Indian princess" and "Indian queen". I am raising it here, not because I think the terms are offensive, but simply because of possible confusion. The words "Indian princess" don't immediately suggest a native American princess, particularly to the UK reader; we have been schooled against using the term "Indian" in the American context. And you have used "Native American" in the lead. Perhaps you would consider whether this wording is the most appropriate.
 * "the Whig Millard Fillmore administration..." is a bit clumsy, particularly with the double blue. Perhaps: "...the Whig administration of Millard Fillmore..."
 * "Julian believes that there were no later restrikes..." and two sentences later: "Numismatic writer R.W. Julian suggests..." The description of Julian belongs to the earlier mention.
 * It would be interesting to know roughly how many of the half-million $3 coins produced are thought to be still in existence; is tghere any reliable estimate?
 * Not that I'm aware of. There are sometimes estimates for individual dates, but they are really focused on how many in the highest grades.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Another for the collection. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. The earlier reviewers seem to have fixed all the obvious problems, so I don't have much to add:
 * I added a link to Oscar Hugh La Grange.
 * Where you talk of resumption of specie payments, a link to Specie Payment Resumption Act might be useful.
 * That's all I've got. Nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will do that, thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.