Talk:Three-cent silver

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three-cent silver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to do the review. I await your comments with interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Wehwalt, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and find that it meets the bulk of criteria for Good Article status. Before its passage to Good Article status, I just have a few comments, questions, and suggestions, which I have listed below. Once these have been addressed, I will feel confident in passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I assess that the lede adequately strands alone as a concise overview. This article's lede properly establishes context, explains why the three-cent silver is notable, and summarizes the most important points; as well as pulls content from each of the articles sections and subsections.
• The template is beautifully formatted and all its content is sourced by references below.
• The five images of the coin are released into the public domain and are therefore acceptable to use here in this article.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited below, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Background

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Inception

• Eastern U.S. and Western U.S. were mentioned above in the Background section, but Eastern United States is mentioned here. While this isn't a deal breaker, I would suggest that U.S. or United States be used consistently throughout the article when denoting a certain geographic region.
• Would it be more appropriate to state that the coin would weigh three-tenths as much versus three-tenth?
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preparation

• The image of the Pattern coin struck to Peale's design for the three-cent piece in silver is released into the public domain and is hereby acceptable for use in this article.
• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Design

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Production

• The image of the Spanish colonial two-reales piece is released into the public domain and is free to use here.
• In the second paragraph of the Type 1 (1851–1853) subsection, I suggest using consumer to shopper. But this is merely a suggestion.

I think it should stand. Carothers says "customer", if you are interested. I'm not wedded to shopper, I just think it's more to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• If the name is Philadelphia newspaper is unknown, it can be referred to as One Philadelphia newspaper...

It's not mentioned in Carothers. He footnotes to Hunt's Merchants Magazine, Sumner's History of American Currency and to some government reports, none of which I own. I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Aftermath

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Collecting

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Mintages and rarity

• The table is beautifully formatted and the circulation strikes have an inline citation for the contents below. An inline citation is also needed for the proofs column header.

It's the same source. I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I assess this section to be well-written, that the content is internally cited within the prose, and that all sources are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Thank you indeed for the review. Assuming it meets standards, it is on the fast track for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this article more than meets Featured Article status in its current form. I doubt it will face much opposition or requests for edits or corrections. I thank you for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia and look forward to your next article. Congratulations on another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for your kind words and your help in improving it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tardy review

I would have raised the following minor points at the FAC, but ir was closed before I got there:

• Lead: in this usage "less used" should not be hyphenated
• Lead: "the first silver coin not to be legal tender for an unlimited amount": It might be useful to say here what the legal tender limit was.

I looked at it, I think it would be a bit of a digression, for the sake of saying 30 cents.

• Inception: "the largest American coin in commerce of lower value than the quarter eagle ($2.50 piece) was the half-dollar-sized copper cent..." Can you clarify what you mean by "largest"? Physically, or in terms of value – there surely would have been coins of intermediate values in circulation?

Higher denomination. There weren't because they were being hoarded and exported. I will make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Inception: "reales" with an "e"?
• Design: Type 2 and Type 3 are mentioned with no reference to Type 1, and readers are in the dark about the nature of these types until they get to the next section. An introductory explanatory senetence in the Design section might save some head-scratching.
• Type 1: "...as the silvers were easily lost" – is "the silvers" a reference to the coins? The name does not seem to be used elsewhere in the article.
• Type 3: "Type 2 coins were rarely fully struck..." Can you explain what this means, to the non-numismatist (e.g. me) who has just read that 1,603,700 of these were struck?
• Type 3: "Numismatic writer Breen..." – description redundant, he was earlier introduced as "numismatic historian Walter Breen"
• Type 3 (last line): You have "U. S." as distinct from "U.S." elsewhere in the article.

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will work though these in the next few days. I appreciate your comments, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten everything except where commented. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitals

Primergrey has removed some of the capitals from the article. First, the literature uses them, and we are a tertiary source.. Second, there is a need to differentiate the Mint (Mint of the United States, Bureau of the Mint, United States Mint, depending on time) from the Philadelphia Mint; "mint" tends to lead to ambiguity and it's not fully correct, since it doesn't imply the organization. It's also, since this coin was ended at the same time the Bureau of the Mint was created, to use workarounds like referring to "bureau". I'm willing to work with this, but I don't think the present status quo is a good solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't source for style AFAIK. Also MOS:INSTITUTIONS is pretty clear about this. Primergrey (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, "a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources". "State" or "Treasury" would presumably be capped when shorthand referring to cabinet departments ... I'm not saying you're wrong, I had "Senate" lower-cased when they edited a short journal article I recently did. I think it's two issues, the MOS one you mention and also whether the rank referred to for various people should be capped or is a false title and should not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude and I apologize if mine hasn't been quite as good. The MOS is not clear on what an abbreviation is (simply an initialism vs. a shortened version) but MOSINSTITUTIONS is quite clear (with the U/university example). As for job titles, a whole blizzard of Vanity Capping awaits, if we start capitalizing "Mint Director" then "General Manager" then "Assistant Manager", "Lead Hand", "Interim Vice Bean-Counter", I really don't think it's an exaggerated position. Anyway, that's my 2-cent piece ;). Primergrey (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you're fine. I think is a bit more blurry there, especially after 1873 when the administration of the mints (avoided that) moved to Washington. Let's let it go for now and (at least for my part) I will think about it. No hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I waited until it was off the MP before I made any changes and there is certainly no rush. Maybe an attempt to clarify at the MOSCAPS page is an option. Anyhow, I'm off to work (I'm a carpenter... or is that Carpenter). Primergrey (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've shown that given a hammer, you don't see everything as a nail, anyway! Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Usually all we get are complaints!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we use a 3 cent piece again?

I honestly like the idea of a 3 cent piece. We should reinstate it. 2 Cents is too small, 4 cents is too big, but 3 cents is about right. I know that money these days are going less physical, and more digital. But the option is on the table. --MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)