Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James B. Longacre/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 GrahamColm 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

James B. Longacre[edit]

Featured article candidates/James B. Longacre/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. James B. Longacre was an artist who was successful in two somewhat different forms of art, first as a plate engraver, then as a designer of coins as the fourth Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. Liberally illustrated, as is proper in an article on an artist. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"He was on the point of launching this project, having invested $1,000 of his own money (equal to $23,280 today) in preparation, when he learned that James Herring of New York City was planning a similar series. In October 1831, he wrote to Herring, and the two men agreed to work together" - source?
"Peale complained to Patterson, who wrote to Treasury Secretary William M. Meredith asking for Longacre's removal on December 25, 1849 on the ground he could not make proper dies. Patterson that day promised the position to engraver Charles Cushing Wright, effective when Longacre was ousted. Meredith questioned whether a competent replacement could be found; Patterson assured him that one could." - source?
"Designs and formats varied; at first, Mint authorities considered an annular, or holed, cent. In 1854 and 1855, much experimentation was done, some with a Liberty Head design as featured on the large cent; others with a flying eagle design adapted by Longacre from the Gobrecht dollar of 1836. Gobrecht's design said to have been modeled on Peter the eagle, a tame bird which frequented the Philadelphia Mint in the 1830s until it was caught up in machinery and killed; Peter, in stuffed form, remains at the Philadelphia Mint to this day." - source?
Whitman Publishing or Whitman Publishing LLC?
Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Some paragraphs got split along the way, I recombined two and migrated a ref over with the other. The others are all done. Thank you for your work, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon research, they were caused by an IP editor who came through the other day and split a number of paragraphs without doing anything about the referencing, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

Lead: "but" in first paragraph should be an "and"
Early life

Longacre's birth year appears as 1894
"Also employed at the Murray firm from 1816 on..." the "on" is unnecessary
"His work at the company gave Longacre a good reputation..." As you have it, this reads as though Gobrecht's work gave Longacre a good reputation, surely not the case.

Patterson/Peale years:

"Breen suggested: In the previous section we have "Breen suggests".
"Breen suggested that new coin designs were an impediment to the Mint director's desire to eliminate Longacre as a threat to Peale's medal business." That desire has not yet found its way into the story, and has not evidenced itself in the director's behaviour so far towards Longacre, so I think a little rewording is necessary here.

*"whom Patterson had prepare a design" → "for whom Patterson had prepare a design " Sorry, I misread the original, but it might be slightly reworded for clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Longacre's response..." its needs to be clearer to what/whom he was responding.
"...found the director willing only to contract out to have work done elsewhere." To "contract out" and "to have work done elsewhere" are surely the same thing? You could just say "to contract work out".
"Meridith"or "Meredith"?
Patterson's replacing is reported without comment. Why did he go?

Taxay says "retired" (p. 232) but it's so offhand and he's fairly old fashioned in word use, it doesn't have to mean put up his feet. Peale's misconduct was fairly well known by then, an ex-Mint official had published a pamphlet.

Prolific designer

"decreased the silver content of the coins from half dime to half dollar" The "from ... to" upsets the meaning, which is, I presume, decreasing the silver content of all coins in the range half dime to half dollar.
"so as to be able to" is very verbose. Why not "so that new coins could be distinguished from old"
"an Indian princess": I assume this means a princess from India, not a native American. But knowing some people's perceptions, it may be politic to make this abundantly clear. Particularly in view of a later sentence which equates the depictions on coins of native Americans with this depiction of an Indian princess.

As it now is: "...a female Native American was often used to represent America in art, and a depiction of Liberty as an Indian princess was in accord with contemporary practices". I don't know the protocol, but is the description "Indian" for Native American accepted. Or should "Indian princess" be in quotes, as this is a false description? Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still OK, last I checked. I think advocates would prefer Native American, but both seem in widespread use.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: $2,200 (which unfortunately for him he had to hand in) seems a huge fee for designing one side of a medal to be presented to a single naval officer.
"to make smaller the large copper cent." I would have thought the natural form would be "to make the large copper cent smaller".
"to this day" is disapproved, as non date-specific

"remains on exhibit at the Philadelphia Mint" is still non date-specific. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The flying eagle design was adopted for a large issue of patterns to government officials and others in 1856..." I don't know what this means; presumably numismatists will know, but the general reader, like me, may be baffled.

Civil War issues

"Longacre was hired to redesign five silver and four gold coins..." Hired by the Chileans?
"Wharton's interests" sounds slightly disembodied and sinister. Could it not be "Wharton and his associates" or similar?

Could this not be clarified? What were these "interests"?

I took Taxay to mean business associates of Wharton and others who for economic reasons sought the increased use of nickel. I can research this further if you like as I have an article somewhere on the myth that he pushed for the Flying Eagle cent but did not actually own any nickel mines until 1863.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death and assessment

"representations of the Native Americans" → "representations of Native Americans"

The usual meticulous research has produced a well-informed account with excellent illustrations. I imagine that the above will not involve too much pain in addressing, and I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, that does seem a high sum, especially in gold, I suspect there may be more to the story than meets the eye, perhaps Snowden pulling strings in the government to provide for Longacre's old age. No source that I see picks up on it; when next I go to the ANA library I will peruse the medals volumes to see if they have anything from the other side of things. I will implement your comments within the next couple of days, I am much too tired right now to give them the attention they deserve.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are done. Thank you for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my concerns addressed, per above. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and for going through the article in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Leaning support, reading through, looks good but in need of minor tweaks. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, can you point me to tweaks in particular? I'm happy to oblige.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, I can sort. Preferences, mostly. Revert if unhappy. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I see a lot of politicing and invested interests in the article, which is well brought across and a hook to keep the reader interested, and the referencing is broad and well chosen. My points re prose were minor, dealing but no big deal. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I cant parse - "Mint authorities took notice and obtained legislation for a bronze cent". The why is left open. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained more fully. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. Sources and authors provided (PD-age, US-government and coins, OTRS).

Polished a few tags to be more specific. GermanJoe (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on that. Like to give a shoutout to the staff of the ANA library and museum for allowing me photo access, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well researched, nicely formatted and written, and interesting! For some reason I laughed at the Peter the eagle part - who knew? Anyway, a few very minor nitpicks, but nothing to stop me from supporting:

Consider linking engraving because that's how he began his career (unless it's linked and I've missed it)
Just curious: what exactly is a "die"? Is that something we can link to?
"Appointment" section: Peale controlled access to dies and materials, and was close to Director Patterson, the two men later proved to have been skimming metal from bullion deposits. >> after "Patterson" feels as though it needs a coordinating conjunction or semicolon or something to prevent a run-on
"1844-1853" section: Longacre's work in the private sector had involved cutting lines into a copper plate which was then used to print reproductions >> was he an etcher? Probably should link.
"Prolific designer" section: For the reverse of the coins, Longacre created a wreath of wheat, corn, tobacco, and cotton, blending the produce of the North and the South. >> I don't think of cotton and tobacco as "produce" and was wondering whether "agriculture" might work better here
I seem to think that per MoS the "%" symbol is for scientific articles only (although this truly is not a big deal)
Consider cutting out a few incidences of "numismatic scholar"
Check for dup links. The dup link tool shows some. I can remove but best for you to review and decide which to remove where.

That's all. Great work. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I tend to duplicate links in the lede and in image captions, for the convenience of readers, but I've caught a few in the text and removed. I've implemented most but I am inclined to let the percentage stand. After all, we are discussing an alloy of metal so it's sort of scientific. I'm very grateful for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I duplicate in lead and captions too, and I see you got the ones I meant in the text. Agree re the % symbol and was actually thinking that as I mentioned it. Anyway, all looks good. Thanks for the interesting read. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegate: I see three supports and checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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