Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1974 aluminum cent/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

1974 aluminum cent

edit

Self-nom An interesting sidenote of US coin production history. Given how the US mint is currently trying to juggle the demand of rising copper prices and production costs, it's kinda neat to read about an aborted attempt to try and solve a problem that can relate to current events. References are the best that can be mustered short of doing "restrictive" FOIA requests and finding a long OOP book. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild object Support now, I have only one issue: capitalization. Many times in the text, words in the middle of sentences that don't appear to be proper nouns are capitalized. "Numismatists" particularly caught my eye. Also, "Toven Specimen" - surely Toven, as a name, should be capitalized, but "specimen?" Aluminum is capitalized in the middle of a sentence, too. Pattern Coin, Mint, Coin Die, "About Uncirculated", too. Maybe some of these are okay, but surely many of them are not. Also - with only 2 known examples, I can believe that no sales have taken place, but still, is there any estimate out there of the value of these coins? If not, could that be said in the article? I think people would want to know. Otherwise, great work. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've seen some short FA candidates recently, but I do believe this is stretching it a bit. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, finally. Weak support, informative, good article, albeit really somewhat short for a FA. In the sentence Since no one has ever put up one of these coins for sale, I think I'd change one to any. Y'all have a nice Sunday now. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to your suggestion, and improved the reference mark. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say? Most of it is educated speculation at best. No concrete research has been done on any specimens. I can't just post hard facts when there are no hard facts to begin with. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edited out whatever words weren't supposed to be in there. --293.xx.xxx.xx 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What does the last sentence in the opening section mean? While the United States Secret Service is tasked with the seizure of any specimens, the legality of the coins are in doubt. The first and second clauss seem totally unrelated or if they are realted seem to be stating something that shoudl be worded diffrently. Does it mean that it is illegal to possess the coins? That they are not legal tender? If the latter what does this have to do with the secret service? All in all its a very strange sentence. Dalf | Talk 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but did you read the entire article, or did you just stop at the intro? Just wanna get that cocnern outta the way first before I comment further.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed "while" to "since." I think Dalf was expecting the sentence so say something like "While the US Secret Service is tasked with the seizure of any specimens, coins of this type have been traded openly at least 6 times since their release." I admit, I often expect that kind of sentence structure when it begins with "while." "Since" should have equivalent meaning. Mangojuicetalk 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...If thats the reason, then I can see it. Since the intro pretty much is a basic synposis of the article itself, I just expect that people will read into the article to get the pieces of info....or something. --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but your comment is kinda US-centric. An article title should be reasonably precise. Where's the problem with adding "United States" to it, following the example of other articles in Category:Coins of the United States? 91.65.1.78 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find offense because you have to be blind not to miss Cent (United States) near the top of the page AND template infobox. And it is US-centric because........The United States Mint produced the coin!! Not Royal Canadian Mint, not Royal Mint, and not Credit Suisse or Engelhard. The good old US Mint!! Plus look here to see the other noteable US coinage that don't need redundant tags to identify them as US coins. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about your patriotic feelings, but about encyclopedic standards. An article title should be descriptive and not ambiguous. As I already mentioned, there are coins named "cent" in many countries. Therefore the title "1974 aluminum cent" is ambiguous and not descriptive enough. Is there any factual reason not to align the article title with others from the category mentioned? 91.65.1.78 10:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I find extreme offense that your accusing me of having "patriotic feelings." Now before we get off-track, please show me any other country that has a 1974 Aluminum cent that meets the same general notability in the article. Please also show me any country that had a 1943 steel cent, and a 1955 double die cent that meet the same notability. If you cannot....well, i've just proven why such tags are redundant.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have apparently misunderstood your comments, please accept my apologies, it was not my intention to be offensive. As for the factual question, I can only repeat that the title should be as informative as possible, even for someone who does not look into the text. IMO the current article title falls short of that standard, but I won't go into repeating myself. 91.65.1.78 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, adding (US) to the title or some such would not be necessary, unless there was something else "1974 aluminum cent" could refer to. Mangojuicetalk 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't disambiguate article titles unless the article is ambiguous. There is no other 1974 aluminum cent, so the article title is fine as-is. Raul654 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The further reading section should use {{cite book}} Laïka 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I understand that length is not everything with an FA, but the readable prose (ie; not templates or references) is only 636 words, consisting of one proper section and one short list. Furthermore, the article seems to be nowhere near comprehensive (remember the Five Ws): Who designed it? Yes, the infobox says, but the article should restate the contents of the infobox in more detail (was there a contest for entries? were the designs taken from an earlier copper cent?) Who commissioned it? Why is it "considered by a few numismatists not as a pattern coin but rather a rejected or cancelled regular issue"? When was it first proposed? Where are they now? (Also, there seems to be a mistake in the infobox: the article gives a minting year of 1973, while the infobox states 1974-75). Laïka 17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)I'm changing my vote to weak support; the article is probably not comprehensive, but it seems to include all readily available information about the coin. Laïka 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; also, your images need Fair Use Rationales. Laïka 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Silly me; I hadn't noticed that the coins were PD. Laïka 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all included in the article. Who designed it? is irelevant, because it's a design close to 100 years, with a change in 1959. I don't need to rectify answering that question when Cent (United States coin) does it better. Who commissioned it? and What did it cost to produce?- it's explained in the article that due to issues of seigniorage., the US Mint produced such a coin to explore ways to reduce costs. And I just can't import the even bits of that article, i'm gonna get expelled for copyright violation. Why is it "considered by a few numismatists not as a pattern coin but rather a rejected or cancelled regular issue"? - the reference mark explains it. Again, if I import the info from there, I could find myself close to another copyright violation. And clarify the last sentence please? --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "year of minting" field in the infobox says 1974-1975, but the first paragraph in the history section says "they were produced in 1973". Laïka 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minted for an anticipated release for 1974. Much like how car makers advertise car models one year ahead. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a, 1b and the requirement for "professional" formatting (WRT linking).
    • The opening sentence is a problem: "The 1974 aluminum cent was a proposed cent produced by the United States Mint in 1973." "A proposed coin", not repeated "cent". "Proposed" is unclear to the reader here, who shouldn't have to read the whole article to learn what you mean at the opening. You need to say up-front that the coin was produced in expectation of release in ..., but that it was never released because of ...
    • Issues of linking: Why are simple years and decades blued out? They lead to quite irrelevant pages and spatter the text with blue. Some terms are linked twice in what is a rather short article. "Seigniorage" is linked (twice—one piped, one not), but that's no excuse for not glossing its meaning here, briefly. Remove the piped link?
    • Startitis, a WPian disease: "As a result, the Mint began to test alternate metals,"—why not "As a result, the Mint tested alternate metals,"? Wouldn't mind knowing the year they started, instead. If readers don't get precise info from an expert here, where will they get it?
    • "with some trace elements for stability"—what does "some" add?
    • "they were given a 1974 date in anticipation of being released into circulation"—Stronger: "expectation"; the grammar sucks here, so try: "of their release into circulation".
    • This is rather slender for a "comprehensive" article, a requirement of 1b. A wider view of seigniorage issues, internationally, would be interesting and relevant.
    • "1,570,000 examples of the new cents were struck"—not examples, and not cents, but "cent coins". Tony 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do know that you can edit the article, right? I agree that some of your suggestions are okay, but seriously, did I accidently trigger something of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles by mistake?--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he knows, but you're the one nominating it. ALTON .ıl 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My points above were examples of why the whole text needs thorough copy-editing. I'm not your free, private copy-editing slave; network on WP to find people who are interested in working on it. Tony 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is typical of FACs. I'll make the changes. I think the reason people do this sometimes, rather than just making the changes, is to make it clear they expect those changes to be agreed to. Also, not all of the above is trivial: the "wider view" of seigniorage issues, for instance. Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. While I don't object to the length, it seems less than comprehensive. I wouldn't guess there is a lot more to say on the subject but reading the article left me wondering about things I would have expected to be covered. Some issues:
    • The list of other possible examples seems half-hearted. Some expansion of this section should be made. I can read about it in the linked references but if you wanted me to do that, then you could just give a list of links and forget the article. There is a quite sizeable chunk on the bronze clad coins in the Testimony of Beth Deisher cited in the article.
    • The rejection of the proposal by Congress is glossed over, is that really all there is in the article cited? Not even a date for the rejection?
    • "One example is attributed to a story of a US Capitol Police Officer who found the coin dropped by an unnamed US Congressman." Attributed to a story?
    • Penny is used for cent without explanation that this is another name for it.
    • "A composition of 96% aluminum (with some trace elements for stability) was chosen." - presumably the trace elements make up the other 4%? Or are they included in the 96%, and the remaining 4% is something else?
    • Merging the Toven Specimen to this article would avoid the need to do the awkward linking here without explanation.
    • The bronze-clad examples are said to have existed in the first paragraph and are later classified as "alleged to have existed at some point or another" ("at some point or another" is redundant here too)
    • Why are there two pictures of the obverse and reverse? The second one doesn't really add anything.
    • Some capitalisation and abbreviation issues: Congressman v congressman, Mint v mint, U.S. v US
    • I don't really agree with Tony that a wider view of seigniorage issues would be relevant, but a couple of sentences outlining the concept would be handy.
    • Some expansion of the final change in 1982 would be good too, was aluminium considered?
    • A quick search turns up more information: Iowa lawyer questions legal position, Doctors worry about X-ray visibility in 1974 and Mary Brook's reply, US Mint press release stating there will be no aluminum penny
    • The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents by David W. Lange ISBN 0974237132 gives a lot more information on the production, issue of the examples, the recall, proposed bill and bronze-clad coins, plus the legal position. Yomanganitalk 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find the article to be well written and well organized. What I do have a problem is the last two oppositions in this nomination. I find that their "request" for more references to be abit extreme in the sense. I think such research should be left to "Experts" in the coin collector field and not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a replacement for specialized works. i.e. I don't come to Wikipedia to tell me how to fix the engine on my Toyota Previa when a Chilton manual will suffice.--Cesario (JPN) 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The usual term for the metallic composition referred to is alloy as in Aluminum alloy. Why avoid the term altogether? An alloy has different properties than a mixture of its individual constituents, and in this particular sense, it is not a compound or composition, even if it is composed of several elements.
    • Trace implies incredibly minute or difficult to detect amounts, or that cannot be removed from the refining process. The added alloying materials may be less than a tenth of a percent, but they are definitely known, detectible and added or controlled for with intentional accuracy. -- Yellowdesk 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Yellowdesk 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1974_aluminum_cent/archive1&oldid=1141924081"