Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

The US was also considering joining the Latin Monetary Union with the dollar at 5 Francs. If they'd done that, then 1 Franc would've been exactly 20 cents. Was that part of the motivation? -- Nik42 04:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is one theory. See: [1], however, I believe by the time the coin actually came into production the idea had been dropped. Splarka 05:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This one's next. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Again, solid research and solid prose; clearly close to promotion. I'll hold this one until you've had a chance to address the bottom three points here.

  • "the twenty-cent piece was made a legal tender up to five dollars" -- Am I understanding this phrase right that you couldn't use, say, 30 of them for a payment of six dollars? Interesting.
You are correct. Remember, we are not dealing with a token here, but a dollar defined by the gold standard, which the US was for all intents and purposes on. A full-weight gold coin was worth exactly what it said, it contained, say, ten dollars in gold if you melted it down. If you melted down $6 in twenty-cent pieces in 1875, you would have silver worth somewhat less than six dollars (I have the historic values of silver in my references). The dollar was defined as gold. Silver and base metal pieces had limited legal tender status.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • " Vermeule admitted the pattern designs made by Barber, especially the "Liberty by the Seashore" design, which the historian believes owe a debt to the British copper coins of that period depicting Britannia—Barber was an Englishman by birth." -- this sentence seems to get a little confused--what is it that Vermeule is admitting here? I wonder if this could be untangled into two sentences--also, "admitted" should probably be avoided per WP:WTW in favor of "said" or "wrote".
It should have been "admired". Typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "He deems it appropriate" -- tense seems to be shifting here; Vermeule's other comments were relayed in past tense
  • ""The new twenty-cent coin". The New York Times. April 29, 1875. Retrieved June 20, 2013." -- is this entry correct? The paper seems to be the Mansfield Herald
I've fixed the remainder. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose points above.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Proofs[edit]

The lede seems slightly confusing. Proofs were struck in all 4 years of this coin's run. The statement, "for circulation in 1875 and 76 and for collectors the following two years" seems to indicate that proofs were only struck in 1877 and 78. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)