Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Susan B. Anthony 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Susan B. Anthony dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Susan B. Anthony dollar, one of the least popular coins ever struck for American circulation. In response to the Eisenhower dollar, another unpopular coin, the U.S. Mint began issuing a smaller dollar in 1979. It quickly became apparent that it would also not be accepted by the public, partly due to confusion caused by the similarity in size between it and the quarter dollar. Numismatists drew comparisons between the Anthony dollar and the twenty-cent piece, another failed coin which also caused confusion in commerce. I believe this article meets the criteria for featured status. Thanks to Wehwalt and Godot13 for supplying me with invaluable material, without which this article would have been impossible to write to its fullest potential. Thanks in advance for viewing and reviewing!-RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IR, Nikkimaria!-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did some copyediting last night and emailed RHM22 some suggestions which he has implemented. Well done!--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, copyedit and comments!-RHM22 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~Support. This all looks very good. One omission I noticed was that you never mention the coin's derisive nickname, the "Carter quarter". Do you think it's worth including? There are some sources, just based on my quick Google search. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coemgenus! I was initially hesitant to include that, because I was concerned that it might be too much negative wording, but I think you're correct; it was a common expression at the time. I've included it, along with some other information, in the 'Reception' section. By the way, another humorous moniker for the SBA dollar was the "J.C. Penny".-RHM22 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I hadn't heard that one. Great article, here, I've changed to full support. Nice work, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coemgenus! I believe there were other unpleasant names, but I can't remember them at the moment.-RHM22 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rationalobserver[edit]

This is an excellent article that, IMO, easily meets the Feature Article criteria. So I can enthusiastically support its promotion. All I could find are a few meaningless nit-picks, but here are a couple suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Several proposals were proffered

It's a nit-pick, but those words are a bit difficult for me to read in such close procession.

I agree. I've changed it to "submitted", which is mostly the same thing.

Background

areas in which gambling was common.

Do you mean common or legal?

I'm not certain about this. I don't know whether gambling was legal in other places at the time, or if it was commonly practiced in those places. Most demand for the Eisenhower dollar came from the Nevada gambling lobby, of course.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A provision was added requiring the coin to depict recently deceased President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the obverse and a design "emblematic of the symbolic eagle of Apollo 11 landing on the moon" on the reverse,[a] and President Richard Nixon signed the bill into law on December 31, 1970.[11]

I would put a full-stop after reverse, as this is a bit of a long sentence that might be trying to do a tad too much.

Good call. I've done as suggested.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the obverse and reverse designs were executed by Frank Gasparro,

Maybe it's just me, but execute seems odd here. How about, "Both the obverse and reverse artwork was designed by Frank Gasparro", assuming the proper meaning is retained. Even better, "Frank Gasparro designed both the obverse and reverse artwork", though it's shifting the focus of the sentence away form the artwork and toward the artist. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a bit hesitant to say "designed", because Gasparro based the reverse on the Apollo 11 insignia, which wasn't designed by him. I've changed it to "created", which I think conveys the correct meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and very few circulated in everyday commerce

"Everyday commerce" seems a bit odd; maybe: "and very few were circulated for commercial use".

How about "transactions"? I've changed them thus.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty design

The Mint began preparation

"began preparation" → "prepared"?

Hmm. I'd be cautious here as well; the preparations weren't completed immediately. It actually took Gasparro several months to design the coin, not to mention other considerations. I'd prefer to keep the current wording, if it's acceptable to you.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I can't find anything but minor nit-picks. Well done, RHM22! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rationalobserver for the support and suggestions! I've implemented them, except where noted above.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Honestly it looks virtually flawless to me, I can't see anything worth mentioning. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. B.!-RHM22 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
- I think I've addressed this correctly, by adding the parameters that allow to the column width to format automatically to the standards set by the readers' browsers.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check that citations with multiple pages use "pp." not "p." - a couple of errors
- Thanks! That's a good catch; I looked over it, but missed those in the process. They're corrected now.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your periodicals are inconsistently formatted - for example, Bailey has publication title-publisher-volume but then Schwager has publication title-volume-publisher
- I tried to fix it, but they still looking like that, and I can't quite figure out why. They seem to all be formatted the same, but Schwager and Stevens still don't have the volume and number in the same place as the others.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got it now! I mistakenly used the cite news template, instead of cite journal. Now they're all fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between the two United States Senate (1978) sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, those are two different sources! One is a Senate report, and the other is a hearing.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Nikki, for the SR! I've addressed your concerns, but I'm still trying to figure out the inconsistent formatting.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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