Brianboulton (talk | contribs) →Indian Head eagle: FAC comments |
→Indian Head eagle: Oppose |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''—1a, MoS, referencing. And this is the editor who has publicly pushed to make it impossible for anyone but admins to copy-edit FA blurbs that appear on the main page. So here's a wp:pointy review to scrutinise the work of this admin. He has also just complained to Raul that it's somehow wrong to improve the language and formatting of a blurb because this will make it more different from the opening of the corresponding FA. He would object, thus, to any attempt to improve the text of this lead insofar as it appeared as a blurb on the main page. I'm not an admin, so maybe I don't have the status to suggest improvements here. |
|||
*"Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, <u>though</u> he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical. |
|||
*"President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet. |
|||
*"originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again. |
|||
*"intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned? |
|||
*"US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907? |
|||
*"the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended"). |
|||
*We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line. |
|||
*"and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic. |
|||
*Probably "differ''ed''". |
|||
*"When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology. |
|||
*"the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear. |
|||
*"stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the". |
|||
*"at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction ''of''? |
|||
*"and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash. |
|||
*Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words. |
|||
I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:17, 29 June 2011
Indian Head eagle
Indian Head eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The sixth in a projected ten article series about the Great Recoinage of U.S. coins between 1907 and 1921, we return to the initial battles which we saw in Saint-Gaudens double eagle between sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber and President Theodore Roosevelt, who went so far as to threaten Barber with decapitation (a certain appropriateness there, what with Barber's cutting name). Since it covers the same time period as the double eagle article, I went to some effort to not use the same quotes or images (excepting one) which are used in the double eagle article. This has passed GA and received a PR. Enjoy it. Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Missing bibliographic info for Vermeule
- FN 16: which Burdette?
- FN 31: formatting should match Bibliography entries. Also, GBooks links don't require retrieval dates
- FN 35: check author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Support – I peer reviewed this article and such very small quibbles as I had have been addressed. I leave comment about the images to those who police such matters, but in all other regards, this article seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Interesting even for those of us to whom numismatics is a closed book. The article is a credit to Wehwalt and will be a credit to Wikpedia. – Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Image Review - Just about everything checks out from a copyright standpoint, my only concern is that the name of the source publication for File:High relief eagle.png isn't actually listed, it just says there is one. I'm also really not sure why we need the two mint medals of the directors, the image quality isn't too great and the images themselves seem superfluous. Finally, File:Pt eagle.png looks artificially enlarged, so I'm going back to the source and doing it over. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pt eagle.png handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Leaning to support: I have a few minor issues with this otherwise characteristically informative coin article:-
- Lead
- "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model that the sculptor had prepared for the cent instead for the obverse of the eagle". The "instead" is awkwardly placed, though other placements are equally problematic. I've made lots of attempts to reframe the sentence, but can do no better than: "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model for the obverse of the eagle that the sculptor had intended for the cent" - which may not be much better.
- Can ending a paragraph and beginning the next with "Saint-Gaudens" be avoided?
- Inception
- Pipe-link "Liberty Head" to Liberty Head Gold Dollar? On the same theme, should "the head of Liberty" be piped to Liberty (goddess)
- "...had remained the same for 25 years..." → "...had remained the same for more than 25 years..."
- Preparations
- I'm not sure what the "collar" is in coin terms, and I am baffled by the wording "the Mint's machine shop worked to invent the collar." Invent?
- Perhaps you couls also exclaim what is meant by "rim"
- Design
- I'm a bit concerned by the double hyphenation in "olive-branch-wrapped". But can anything be "wrapped" in a branch?
- Release and production
- Small point: you mention that the eagle series had begun in 1795. I think this quite significant piece of background information should be mentioned in the lead.
- Collecting
- Conventionally, "forty" should be "40"
- What does "satin proof" mean?
- The long image caption, which elaborates on information given earlier in the text, displaces the References section. Would it be better to have the expanded information in the text, and a short summary caption?
I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a, MoS, referencing. And this is the editor who has publicly pushed to make it impossible for anyone but admins to copy-edit FA blurbs that appear on the main page. So here's a wp:pointy review to scrutinise the work of this admin. He has also just complained to Raul that it's somehow wrong to improve the language and formatting of a blurb because this will make it more different from the opening of the corresponding FA. He would object, thus, to any attempt to improve the text of this lead insofar as it appeared as a blurb on the main page. I'm not an admin, so maybe I don't have the status to suggest improvements here.
- "Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, though he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical.
- "President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet.
- "originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again.
- "intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned?
- "US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907?
- "the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended").
- We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line.
- "and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic.
- Probably "differed".
- "When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology.
- "the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear.
- "stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the".
- "at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction of?
- "and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash.
- Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words.
I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. Tony (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)