Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three-cent nickel/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Three-cent nickel[edit]

Three-cent nickel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about… one of the less loved coins, both in its time and since. The three-cent nickel was born out of public disgust with dirty paper money, an industrialist's desire to market his product, and a mysterious political deal we still don't know much about. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • No DABs or overlinking
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Nothing jumps out at me on first reading, but I'll wait a bit and give it another one in a while.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the other reviewers have caught everything that I might have had problems with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Some of the details in the infobox, such as the diameter, are unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added that, but it looks odd because it comes out: 17.9[1] mm
Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, although I suppose you could add a footnote/references parameter to the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to support: I have done review duty on numerous US coin articles – a subject of which I was apprehensive and entirely ignorant when I started, but on which I now consider myself almost a regular pundit. My first impression on this one was that the images are a bit overwhelming, and they certainly overcrowd the text in the first part of the article. Are they all necessary, and if so, must they all be in this place? (The situation is not helped by the infobox overhang, but I understand that this infobox format is standard for these articles). At the very least, could not "upright" be used, to reduce the sizes of the images?

I have added the field you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comment:

Lead
  • The point that the three-cent piece was initially popular but was then supplanted by the 5-cent piece is made twice in the lead. This ought to be fixable.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • "This percentage of silver was less than the normal 90% to keep the coins circulating at a time of hoarding." Needs a comma after "90%", to avoid ambiguity.
I wasn't certain of the ambiguity so I rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in addition to authorizing the new coin lowered rates for most domestic mails." Again, would read more easily with a comma (after "new coin").
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that a metallic crisis has been established in the earlier prose. Also, why switch from "90%" to ".900", assuming they mean the same thing?
Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "change was made by a variety of makeshifts" – I think this means "change" in the sense of "loose change", but this is not altogether clear.
It means what is returned to the purchaser when a sum of money larger than the agreed price is tendered. I'm open to suggestions if you view this as unclear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word "change" has a primary meaning of "alteration", so that the phrase "and change was made by a variety of makeshifts" can, by the incautious reader, be easily misunderstood. That's why I suggested "loose change", a (perhaps) British expression. Could you perhaps say "small change"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All changed, by the way!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An mdash rather than a comma after "federally-issued fractional currency"
  • "The low-value paper currency, whether issued by government or business, were called shinplasters..." Plural verb? Also, I assume that "shinplasters" was a colloquial rather than an official name; this needs to be clear.
True. Above two both clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be naïve, but how can a cent "command a premium of 4%"?
They were sold in lots, I believe of 100, which would have cost $1.04. I will add a brief explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bill, as introduced..." → "Pollock's bill, as introduced..."
  • The "inception" section appears to end before the inception of the three-cent nickel, and perhaps should have a more general title, such as "Background"
  • The caption to the image that shows the enclosed stamp doesn't explain what the lower image (the "sarsaparilla" token) is.
It is the back. These served as advertising. I will add something. The three above this are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation
  • "non-specie" - requires link or explanation
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "authorized fractional currency" → "authorized fractional paper currency"
"Fractional currency" is what they are called. That is the usual term. It's been linked, and I think further usages will have to stand. Note that this term is never used to refer to coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They contended that were Congress to order a three-cent bronze coin, that such a piece would be as big as an obsolete large cent, a fact that might be used to deceive the blind into accepting the less-valuable coin." There's one "that" too many in the first part of the sentence. I'd also tidy the latter part: "which might deceive the blind..." etc
Polished.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Taxay "noted that" the three-cent coin was superfluous. I think this is more a statement of his opinion than of fact, and perhaps should be presented as such.
Suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • Remove comma after first "Longacre"
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early years (1865–1873)
  • "One reason for this was that the nickel would be redeemed..." To avoid confusion I would specify "five-cent nickel"
Done, in modified form.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Pollock's resignation..." Maybe date and say why (especially as he returns to office later)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congress took no action..." Specify "on the redemption issue"
Done in modified form.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "greenbacks" being what?
Coin of the realm, sans coin. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "throughout the agency" – what is meant by the agency?
The Mint. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Linderman submitted legislation abolishing fractional currency of less than 25 cents, and authorizing copper-nickel coins of one, three and five cents..." Presumably, "abolishing all existing fractional currency..." etc, otherwise I can't see that the sentence makes sense
Changed to "discontinue".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and end (1873–1890)
  • "Although more than a million three-cent pieces were minted in 1881, another blow to the three-cent piece occurred on October 1, 1883..." – awkward repetition
GOt it.
  • "The nickel proved popular in slot machines..." - I assume this is the 5-cent version
Yes. I've made that clearer, indirectly. I should add that "three-cent" is what is being disambiguated by the addition of "nickel", not the other way around.
Collecting
  • "1887/6" is a mite confusing, though I understand from your explanation what happened. However, this overdating doesn't really qualify as a "variety", more a botched job.
    I will pipe here. It's a technical term.
  • Are the coins with missing features considered collectable? If so, do they have any great value?
The contrary. They are, so to speak, considered botched jobs. The better the strike, the better the value, in genera.

These are points of detail. which I imagine can be easily fixed. But I would welcome your consideration of the image size/overcrowding issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly for your continuing work on these articles. I will get to them perhaps later in the day (California time). I am slowly gearing up now that I can type again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind pinging me when you're done? I'm chasing a lot of tails at the moment (note the plural) and not noticing everything that's going on. Incidentally I am due to disappear for a short break on 8th – R & R in a warmer climate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so slow, they are done now. Enjoy your break and take care on wet wooden surfaces lest you have more of a break than is convenient!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: One outstanding issue, not significant enough to warrant withholding support. I can see that the term "a short break" might cause you to wince; I will do my best to ensure that it's not literal. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad. Enjoy your trip, and don't take any wooden euros, or if you do take PD photographs. The arm is becoming less of an impediment, thanks. I've added "in transactions" after "change", which I think should address the above matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read this article a few nights ago and edit conflicted with Brian when he posted his comments. As it happens he picked up the same points I did (and a few more) so they've now been taken care of. The only issue I see (which isn't an impediment to supporting but rather a formatting issue) is that apparently the long quote at the bottom of the production section should be a blockquote. It's not formatting as such on my computer and so I was a little thrown off when I read it, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Just thought I'd mention it. As it happens I like nickels, I've always wondered what a shin-plaster was, had heard of "copperheads" (not the snake!) but never knew what they were, so I enjoyed reading this. Also, I think you've done a good job of detailing the various fluctuations in gold and silver markets during those years, which is not an easy task! Nicely done. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly for your support. I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, can you be more specific? I see you have a fellow Penn grad at FAC, I am hoping to get to it or if it is promoted before I do I will leave talk page comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I meant the "Background" section. I think there's text squash there interfering with the quote box formatting. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut an image and rearranged a bit. How is it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's formatting correctly now. Sorry though that you had to lose an image! Victoria (tk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's your hand? I'll give this a look. Still need an image review? (Though to be honest I agree with Brian that there are a few too many).
I cut one. Since there is only one image in the latter part of the article, I don't want to cut too many. Yes, please do an image review, thanks. Hand is fine, it's the upper arm that needs time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designed by Mint Chief Engraver James B. Longacre, it was initially popular, but its place in commerce was supplanted by the five-cent piece, or nickel. - few too many clauses. I'd suggested getting rid of "or ... " and linking five-cent piece to nickel directly.
Not sure I agree on the "nickel" part. A five-cent piece could be a silver half dime. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With precious metal federal coinage hoarded, including the silver three-cent piece, and even the copper-nickel cent commanding a premium, Congress issued paper money in denominations as small as three cents. - The first sentence begs the question "why"? Overall the background section is not well represented here
  • March 3, 1865, a bill for a three-cent piece in copper-nickel alloy was introduced in Congress, passed both houses without debate, and was signed by President Abraham Lincoln. - Double checking: all in the same day? (what happened to American politics?)
You got it. This is why so many acts, until the Twentieth Amendment shifted the congressional terms after 1933, are the Act of March 3, (odd number years). The last day of the congressional term used to be extremely chaotic and quite a tourist attraction. The president would be in a room, signing bills as they were passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change was made to the design of the three-cent piece in nickel during its lifetime - would it be easier to say "three-cent nickel"?
I suppose, but as there is no truly official name for this issue, I'm trying to mix it up a bit with various acceptable terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • thereafter strikings declined, falling to under a million by 1871, a figure the coin would thereafter exceed only twice. - Too many Thereafters
  • in lots of $20 - curious how this would have worked. I mean, 2,000 is not divisible by 3.
On reference to the act, $20 was a minimum. Will tweak.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - If I haven't linked it, it has no issues.

  • File:1852 3 Cent Silver - Type 1.jpg - "It is unclear if this item of currency or official token is currently in circulation. Please update the use of this tag if you have this information." - Is there a way to make this go away? I mean, it's an 1852 coin, I doubt it's going to be in regular circulation. None of your other uploads have it.
I think I need to eliminate it from the template or transfer the image to Commons. Any preference?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to show a shitty one, to demonstrate what the objections were.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Mind if I lighten it a bit later? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, sure. The black background is a bit disconcerting can you get rid of it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. Can you lighten it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Since none of the minor outstanding points re. images seem to involve licensing problems I think we can safely leave them to be resolved post-FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Three-cent_nickel/archive1&oldid=598818992"