I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a well-referenced overview of United States silver certificates and it contains a table of images presenting a complete set of all designs and denominations issued. In addition, it is part of an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of numismatics (in particular, U.S. banknotes)... :Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
COMMENT In the last image, you correctly indicate that the bill is a star note, however, can you link that in the image descriptor? Otherwise, Support.Coal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Done, and thanks for the support!-Godot13 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph dates are listed in the international fashion of day/month/year "(for one year – 24 June 1967 to 24 June 1968)" whereas later in the article they are the standard US format of month/day/year.
In the second paragraph "(1878 to 1923)" I think should mention that we are referring to those series as they were of course often printed and issued after their series dates.
In progress (completely agree, looking for appropriate ref)Fixed and referenced.
" In 1928, all United States bank notes were re-designed and the size reduced." Would it be relevant to list those dimensions?
fixed, added note to first line of the second paragraph.
Under History here: " Members of congress claimed ignorance that the 1873 law would lead to the demonetization of silver" Congress should be capitalized as we're referring to the U.S. Congress.
In the Large-sized silver certificates section: "Congress used the National Banking Act of 12 July 1882" Here again the date is listed in international standard.
In the Small-sized silver certificates section: "Due in part to the outbreak of World War II and the end of his appointed term, any recommendations may have stalled." a simple typo, should be WWI instead of II
Same section: " On 20 August 1925, Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon appointed a similar committee and in May 1927 accepted their recommendations for the size reduction and redesign of U.S. banknotes. On 10 July 1929 the new small-size currency was issued. In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Hawaii overprint note was ordered from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on 8 June 1942." Three more instances of dates in international standard.
In the End of silver certifications section: " enacted on 4 June 1963 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, and the Acts of 6 July 1939 and 31 July 1946, " Three more instances of dates in international standard.
In the series and varieties table: "The Act of 4 August 1886 " One more instance of date in international standard.
In the small size table: "1613W – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Wide – blue. 1613N – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Narrow – blue." Should we include a notation mentioning what makes these "wide" or "narrow"?
Other than that a great step up with improving this article SupportNiceCurrency (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and support. I'm working my way through them:
Regarding the date format, I've changed the U.S. format into International format for internal and external consistency. In two other lists that are Featured I have used the International date format.-Godot13 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
All comments addressed/resolved. Thanks again.-Godot13 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment - The note descriptions are not full sentences and thus should not have a full stop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). (1) Citation problems: this is a major issue, I see "citation needed tags" that should not be present for an FLC page. (2) Several short paragraphs that are one-sentence-long-paragraphs or two-sentence-long-paragraphs, it'd be nice if these could either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. (3) The sister link to Wikimedia Commons should not be in the See also section, but instead in an External links section. (4) Per WP:LAYOUT, the formatting of the sects for references should be separate sections of Footnotes, then Notes, then References. (5) Might be nice to add sects Further reading and External links sects. (6) In subsection Issue and other sub-subsections, not sure what is sourcing this material, would look better with either a Refs column and/or cites somewhere at the start of each subsection or somewhere so the reader and other editors can attempt to verify this information. Keep me posted if these issues are addressed, and I'll revisit, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Cirt for the comments. I have made all the suggested changes (except for #4, which you changed, much appreciated). I cited most of the major references so the further reading is not extensive (#5), but I will give it additional thought. If any of changes are not satisfactory please let me know. -Godot13 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. Looks better, thanks for being so responsive to my above recommendations. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your support!-Godot13 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Question - I understand why the text is hidden on Fractional currency (United States) from a practical sense it makes sense (eg $0.50 Third Issue), but the hidden content in the template doesn't seem to unreasonably distort the table in this list, any clarification is very much appreciated. Aureez (Talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Aureez- Thanks for the question. You are correct, I have removed the hidden key sorting from the value columns. --Godot13 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't what I was referring to, the content in the Signature & seal varieties column was what I was raising a question to. Aureez (Talk) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Aureez-- Okay. The hidden (expandable) content only exists for those type notes with more than 4-5 different varieties. In these cases the cells would become elongated and make the Signature & seal varieties column unnecessarily long and disproportionate to the others. --Godot13 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not so disproportionate. It could be removed... - Godot13 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
All removed.--Godot13 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice "inconsistent citations" in 2 of your references. Aureez (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Aureez, the bot notices have been removed. Two minor corrections were made to two other references as well.--Godot13 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Godot13 The "United States paper money" Reference needs a retrieval date and Footnotes 14/16 are the exact same footnote. Aureez (Talk) 23:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Aureez. I believe I've addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else.--Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Footnotes 16 is still pretty redundant, anyway to change that? Aureez (Talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Aureez- Not sure how to combine footnotes like references. Any assistance would be welcome.--Godot13 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)