Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. This my second dollar coin article to be nominated for FA status. My first, Morgan dollar is also a current nomination, but I was given permission by Laser brain to add this one as well. The Sacagawea dollar, like its predecessor the Susan B. Anthony dollar, proved unpopular with Americans in commerce. Nonetheless, it continues to be minted, now with a reverse that changes yearly. Thanks in advance to reviewers!-RHM22 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I split in two paragraphs.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
"The coin was first suggested as a replacement for the Susan B. Anthony dollar, which, while unpopular as a coin for every day commerce, proved useful for vending machine operators and mass transit systems" - "everyday", and is it the Anthony or the Sacagawea dollar that "proved useful"?
I reworded to make it a little more clear. Do you think it's better now?-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Source link for Castle's portrait seems to be dead
Yup, that portion of the website was probably deleted after Castle left the House. I removed the link and replaced added simply "United States House of Representatives" as the source. If this isn't acceptable, I may be able to find an old version of the Castle website on archive.org.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was Sacagawea chosen despite the clear public preference for the Statue of Liberty? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know about this. My sources don't indicate the actual reasoning, other than the committee members (except for Castle) preferred that subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions! I've addressed all but the latter, because I don't have any information about that. Let me know if the changes I've made are satisfactory.-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. Don't worry overmuch about the last point, it's mostly just curiosity. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ref 8: Give the publisher (US General Accounting Office) rather than the web address
Refs 17 to 22: Same point, really; publisher in each case is United States Mint
Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. I have carried out spotchecks which elicit no problems
Thanks! I fixed the refs.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
CommentLast sentence of the article states that the coin is popular in Uruguay, but the source says Ecuador. Also, the word 'however' doesn't work at the beginning of that sentence.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice catch, thanks! I fixed that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Great! I noticed that Mule_(coin) has a paragraph about the Sacagawea dollar. There is no source for that section, but it has some interesting info not found in the mule section of this article, such as the discredited theory that the coins were intentionally struck, the explanation of the accidental die replacement, the state quarter used for the obverse side (Washington), and how much one of the coins sold for. If you can verify that any of these facts are true, I think it would be nice to incorporate them into the article. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the highest priced example ($75,000). The Washington (or 50 States) quarter and the part about the coins being struck accidentally were already in there. The claim that the quarter die was used as a replacement for a cracked die is likely, but dubious at the same time. Of course, no die would be replaced until its predecessor was worn out, but there is some evidence that at least three distinct die pairs were used, meaning that the coins were likely not all struck on the same day. This really makes you question the Mint's official stance on their origin, since the Washington obverse must have been removed and then another put in its place, but I don't know of any reliable sources that disagree with them on that.-RHM22 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I'll be sure reply here if I find anything else! Hopefully I'll be able to go over the article comprehensively sometime this week. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Further comments by Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I'm going to make some minor edits as I go, and report back here whenever I see something significant.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to include a very brief explanation of who Sacajawea was in the lead, for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with American history.
Would suggest wiki-linking first use of the Susan B. Anthony dollar. It's okay to link to its first use in the body as well.
"In the 1970s, following the lack of success of the Eisenhower dollar..." ==> I would suggest "In the 1970s, following the unsuccessful Eisenhower dollar...", but whatever works for you. Regardless, this reads oddly and should be revised.
"...due in large part to their similarity in size and identical composition" What sort of composition? Metallic composition, I suppose. Might be best to clarify.
It's possible that it is just my liberal bias, but it would seem that the affiliated political parties of the legislators who proposed the coin's mintage is basically irrelevant. It seems like a non-partisan issue, although it is interesting that all of these legislators are Republicans..
"Though the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997.." I think it would be best to clarify in the preceding section that the fourth section of the 50 States Coin Act is also referred to as the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997.
Unfortunately this is all I have time for right now. I will do my best to come back later today to finish reviewing the article! It's all very good so far! Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your edits, suggestions and the kind words! I have addressed all your points, excepting the political parties. I would prefer to leave them in just to let people know their affiliations. I can remove them if you think they take away from the article, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment You do have some numbers in the reception section, but I would prefer a small mintage quantities table if possible. Reywas92Talk 23:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! Normally I don't put mintage numbers in the article, but since this series is relatively short, that seems like a reasonable idea. Gve me a day or so to format the tables and I'll have them in there.-RHM22 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the mintages in a sortable table.-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Another well written / interesting numismatic article. I am one of the few who goes to the bank and exchanges dollar bills for these. Any thoughts about adding a photo of a vending machine that accepts dollar coins? That would seem to be relevant to the "Reception" section. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That would be fine with me. I'll do a quick check around and see if I can find an image of a stamp machine or something.-RHM22 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I did find this and this (but it appears to show only Presidential dollar coins). I know I've also seen a machine down at the transit authority with a sign indicating it gives change in dollar coins. NiagaraDon't give up the ship 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The first one looks good. Is that covered by freedom of panorama?-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - very well written and informing. I learned much just be reading it. Dincher (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better to say "... is a United States dollar coin which has been minted since 2000" to avoid the "currently minted" (which reads awkwardly to me).
Would also help the currently repetitive "..dollar coin. The coin..."
Perhaps my opinion, but "The coin was first minted in 2000, featuring an obverse ..." would be better "First minted in 2000, the coin features an obverse...".
Our own article about State quarters has Quarter capitalised.
Infobox, you relink some stuff but not all, e.g. Goodacre.
Infobox, both Design entries should not take a period.
Some squashing of text going on between the image of the senator/coin and the infobox, looks a little scrappy.
Eisenhower dollar -> Dollar (according to our own article)
"Mint sculptor" vs "mint personnel" - why not consistently capitalise Mint?
"39 such coins were struck..." avoid starting sentences with a numeral.
I think I fixed your table a little (en-dashes, and associated sorting)
Don't mix date formats in the references.
Suc box needs an en-dash instead of 2007-present.
Are both categories really needed? Strikes me that United States dollar coins is a more specific category of Coins of the United States, so should cover it?
Thanks for the comments and fixes! I've addressed all of your concerns, except those about the denomination capitalization. Denominations are almost never capitalized, and I believe the current article titles (Eisenhower and 50 States) to be incorrect. I fixed everything else though.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Still getting image squashing up top, the infobox and the Grams image and the Anthony dollar and the Castle image are really squeezing the text. And date formats are still mixed (date= vs accessdate= should both be same format throughout)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now I got it! I didn't realize that the cite templates rendered the dates as Date-Month-Year. Sorry about that! I'm not sure what to do about the images though. I can remove one if you think it necessary. I would say the Susan B. Anthony image could easily be removed without any disruption to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, TRM is on wikibreak, but I removed the Susan B. Anthony dollar image anyway, because it doesn't really add much.-RHM22 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I thought you were taking a break from the banner on your talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Image review (by someone who is not an expert on US copyright law)
File:Rgrams.gif - can you provide verification that this is PD-USGOV? The source site given is not a government site and doesn't provide information on the original source
Other images are unproblematic, although the purpose of the AirBART image could be made clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Grams photo, but I think it's an official portrait. I'll check and see what I can find. As for the AirBART image, that was added to illustrate what is the only major use of dollar coins, as vending machine fodder.-RHM22 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that this Congressional website has the same photo of Grams in black and white. Do you think that would be enough?-RHM22 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The copyright section is a little unclear. It says that some images are copyrighted, but also that all Senators and Representative images can be attributed to them.-RHM22 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Needs more prose, MOS, grammar and hyphen vs. endash review (see my edit summaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing these for a while now, and those hyphens and dashes still throw me off! Thanks for the fixes, and I'll look through the article to see if I notice any errors.-RHM22 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I fixed the unnecessary dashes. Sorry for messing that up again. I know it wastes everyone's time when I foolishly misuse the punctuation, but to tell you the truth, I didn't know there was a difference between a hyphen and a dash before I started editing Wikipedia! At the least, I am learning a very useful punctuation technique for other, non-Wikipedia tasks as well.-RHM22 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Comments. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Maybe comments can be left on the talk page, and the verdicts can be posted here. For instance, if you leave me suggestions, I respond, and you like the article, you'd just put "support" on this page, leaving the original comments on the talk page. Sorry if that was confusing, I couldn't think of a better way to explain!-RHM22 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed to support; I only had two comments and one is addressed; the other is a request for more information which would be useful but is not critical. Sandy, per your comment above, I looked for prose and grammar issues and didn't find much -- I fixed a couple of minor issues. I am not a great MOS reviewer but didn't spot anything wrong. I have not checked for close paraphrasing but will come back and do that if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Re close paraphrasing: just looked at this source; it's footnote 7 in the current version. The article text is quite close to this source in several places, though I have to admit they are straightforward factual statements that are hard to paraphrase, such as "six obverse and seven reverse designs". I think this is OK, but someone else may want to take a look. Here are the details:
Article text: "The Committee was chaired in a non-voting capacity by Philip N. Diehl"; source: "United States Mint Director Philip N. Diehl chaired the committee in a non-voting capacity." Perhaps rephrase to "The committee was chaired by Philip N. Diehl; the role of the chairman did not include a vote on the designs."
Article text: "They convened in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts presented by members of the public along with numerous telephone, mail and e-mail suggestions"; source: "In June 1998, the DCDAC convened in Philadelphia. It deliberated about the design concept in a public session. Outside input factored heavily into the Committee’s decisions. The Committee listened to 17 design concept presentations from members of the public, as well as to numerous mail, phone, and e-mail messages submitted by the public". How about: "They met in Philadelphia in June 1998, listening to seventeen concepts submitted by members of the public, and reviewing many more suggestions received by telephone, mail and email."
Article text: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended Sacagawea, the Shoshone guide of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, for the design of the new coin."; source: "On June 9, 1998, the committee recommended that the dollar coin bear the image of Sacagawea, the Native American woman who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their exploration of the American West." I think this is fine.
Article text: "In November and December 1998, members of the Native American community, teachers, numismatists, historians, members of Congress, various government officials and others were invited by the United States Mint to review the submitted proposed designs. Six obverse and seven reverse designs were originally selected for further consideration."; source: "In November and December of 1998, the United States Mint invited representatives of the Native American community, numismatists, artists, educators, historians, members of Congress, United States Mint and Treasury officers and employees, and other members of the public to review and comment on all designs received. Using these comments as a guide, the United States Mint narrowed the field to six obverse and seven reverse designs". This is a tricky one; the date barely allows rephrasing, and some attempt has been made to rephrase the list, which is also rather hard. I think this is OK but others may see a way to improve this.
I have not reviewed any other sources for close paraphrasing -- some I don't have access to but some are online and could be reviewed by another reviewer.
Thanks, Mike. This article has given me hyphen and endash fits; will others please review all of my changes to either correct me or learn the distinction between hyphens and endashes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.