Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trade dollar (United States coin)/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.

Trade dollar (United States coin)

 * Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The trade dollar was one of the most reviled coins in the history of the United States, and that's saying something. It was a coin created out of the greed of the federal government and helped feed the greed of businessmen who unleashed the unpopular coins upon the nation. Its original use was to compete with the Spanish dollar and other large silver coins popular in the Orient. Due to bullion depositors dumping the coins into circulation, the trade dollar became the first and only United States coin to be demonetized, though its legal tender status was unintentionally restored in 1965. Thanks in advance for any reviews and comments, and I hope you all like the article!-RHM22 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Can References be two columns?
 * I'm not sure what you mean. How do I put them in two columns?-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I know what you mean! I've seen people use that before, but it doesn't show on my browser so I didn't know what the purpose was. I've made it two columns.-RHM22 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated, and whether "NY" is included for NYC or not
 * Ah! I thought I got all of those, but I was wrong! Sorry about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint" - is that the correct order? The reverse seems more logical to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does sound odd, but that's how it's given in the book.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Harper's Weekly should be italicized
 * Nice catch! It's now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * File:U.S._currency_icon.gif - source link is dead
 * I just removed that from the template, since it seems really unnecessary and maybe even a little confusing, since the coins and paper depicted in the picture aren't obsolete at all.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For images of coins, you need to identify the copyright status of both the coin and the image. In most cases, the coin should be PD-USGov-money. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I knew better than that, but I forgot to add them.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and image review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * "The coin was first struck in 1873, with most of the production being sent to China." Never been a fan of the "with ... ing" sentence structure, as it leads to wordiness. I don't even think "being" is needed here; "with most of the production sent to China" is perfectly fine.
 * "causing frustration amongst those who were given them in payment of services." Also not a fan of "amongst" when you could just have "among".
 * Throughout the article there's a serious case of over-citation. I know we have strong citation standards, but when the same reference is used for four or five sentences in a row, you don't need cites to the same source for all of them.
 * I understand where you're coming from, but I would prefer not to remove citations from the sentences. It's just personal preference, but I like having any possibly challengeable statement cited. If you think it's really bothersome, I could remove some.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Background: "and responsibility for each mints was handed over to a superintendent." I believe "mints" should be singular here.
 * Production: "noting that such a change would be difficult to carry out because Congressional approve would be necessary and that it might cause the coin to lose favor in the Orient." "approve" → "approval".
 * Reception: "allowing the Treasury to pay out silver coin in exchange for paper currency." I feel like "coin" should be some type of plural word in this context. Perhaps "coinage"?
 * I reworded it. "Coin" is sometimes used in that context, but it's slightly archaic.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * En dash needed in Bland-Allison Act (two times).
 * This I'm not sure about. I've been studying endashes and hyphens ever since my great embarrassment on the FAC for Sacagawea dollar, and I don't believe that the endash is needed in "Bland-Allison act", since it's not a range. I could be wrong though. SandyGeorgia was the one that told me about the mistake on Sac, so I'll ask her and see if she knows what to do here.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, but our own article on the act seems to use an endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the only thing that makes me doubt the hyphen. What do you think?-RHM22 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I misunderstood the endash rules! My apologies to Giants for the error. I didn't mean to question your judgement here, but I was just being overly cautious after my last endash fiasco earlier.-RHM22 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "preferring to sell newly-mined silver instead". Remove the hyphen after -ly, as I don't believe this is a compounding element (the only time such a hyphen should be included).
 * "in order to" is another bit of wordiness that can be chopped to just "to".
 * The em dash in the sentence can be changed to an MoS-approved en dash. Even though it's in a quote, WP:MOSQUOTE allows for reasonable fixes to be made.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've fixed everything except the things that I've left notes on above.-RHM22 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – My concerns have all been addressed to my satisfaction, and I think this is another nice coin article. Writing, sources, etc. look up to standard.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:12, 19 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) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support! After working through a handful of concerns with the author, I am happy to support this article. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: All of the items I found have been addressed directly or explained why they are like they are.

Comment: Looks like a pretty good article, but I do have a few questions:


 * 1) The eagle has three arrows in the right claw and an olive branch in the left, a reversal to most other US silver coins of the era. - Do you have a list of which coins were (or were not since it would be shorter) of that design?
 * I don't have a list, but all the contemporary coins used the opposite eagle type except for the twenty-cent piece (United States coin). Would you like me to add that?-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Linderman asked that production of trade dollars be hastened because Mexico was preparing to issue another series of dollars with the older design popular in Asia, a design that was discontinued in 1866. - What was this design?
 * I'm not sure about this. I believe that they put the portrait of the ruler on (it was an eagle and a scale), but I'm not positive on that.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:ALoudonSnowden.JPG - caption seems rather short. It should breifly list why he complained.
 * I've expanded the caption.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:1876TradeDollarPattern.JPG - The caption doesn't make it clear that Paquet didn't reject the desgin because of those fears, but the text does. The caption should be rephrased to clarrify that.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. Pacquet himself didn't reject the design, Linderman did because he feared Chinese disapproval.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the caption before I read the prose. From the paragraph I got the impression Pacquet decided at some later point to withdraw his proposal because of the feared Chinese disapproval. That's obviously not what happened and that's what needs to be clarified. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now. I have added to the prose to clarify that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Lede should include some info on the Bullion producer's impact on the coin and the contemporary reception.
 * Good idea! That does seem relevant, and I've added a section about it to the lead.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there any other contemporary reception of this beyond Breen? 陣 内 Jinnai 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that there are some, but I wasn't really able to find anything. I did add the Harper's Weekly cartoon to give an idea of how unpopular it was with the American public.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I've addressed them above.-RHM22 (talk) 03:06, 26 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) 14:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified the Peace dollar infobox slightly to be a little more consistent with the other dollar coin FAs.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I did some light copyediting earlier on but it really didn't need it. Another worthy coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.