Jump to content

Talk:Franklin half dollar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I noticed Jefferson nickel. Are you shooting for a WP:GT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FT on nickels, but running the nickel through here for a Four Award. There was already an article on Franklin half. However, I suspect there will eventually be several good and featured topics coming out of the numismatic improvement RHM22 and I are doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
That's a pretty substandard article. See the only FA on a half dollar, Kennedy half dollar, which does not. I think I would agree if it were a denomination such as a nickel, whose cent or dollar equivalent is not immediately clear to someone coming to it for the first time (If you look at Jefferson nickel, I call it a five cent coin. However, "half dollar" speaks for itself, I think. Any readers in doubt can look to the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at WP:FA for Flowing Hair dollar, Morgan dollar, Sacagawea dollar and Kennedy half dollar, they all link to either Half dollar (United States coin) or Dollar coin (United States) in the first sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These things are done, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background and selection
  • Please teach the reader about the meaning of "minimum time period for the Mercury dime to be struck" and "eligible for replacement".
  • What was "the 1926 Sesquicentennial half dollar"?
  • Does the ref cover "The designs were submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for their comments. The Commission was provided with a lead striking of the obverse; they also viewed the reverse though how they were able to is uncertain; numismatic historian Don Taxay suggests that they may have viewed the plaster models."?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The exact quote is "A lead impression of the obverse (complete except for the date which was represented by four X's) was sent by acting Director Leland Howard to the Commission of Fine Arts on November 17, 1947. Apparently the Commission had already seen obverse and reverse models, for the trial piece was struck from a re-engraved master die."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find any collecting content. See Flowing Hair dollar and Kennedy half dollar, which both have separate sections. I think you want to make a separate collecting section like those. Also, I think you want to note that this coin had silver content that made it valuable to collectors. You might want to say that this is the last coin whose entire production run was unaffected by the Coinage Act of 1965 in this regard. I wonder if there are estimates on how many of these coins have been melted down for their silver content, especially during the Silver run in the 1980s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One small note: No one knows how many of anything were melted during the silver run. The government kept records, but individuals did not.-RHM22 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably find a paragraph on collecting. I'd like to do a section, but a paragraph will have to do, I guess. I am not image handy, Tony, there's no use asking me about templates. If we don't have it, I go out and take pictures of it if I can or get someone to donate one or do without. I am not creative with images.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at {{Half dollar (United States coin)}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to consider {{Coinage (United States coin)}}. The penny, nickel and dollar already had single purpose templates. This could complement such templates or replace them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a significant consideration that you may want to bring to your project. Essentially, what I am suggesting is that every country go with a common Template:Coinage (country name) format for the histories of all current coinage. For many Eurasian countries this may not be feasible due to the length of the coinage histories, but it is a suggestion. I think coin people will want to navigate across coinage denominations quickly and this is a way to go for the US.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are proposing to do is for the six currently-struck denominations, have a common template? It's an idea, but it is beyond my wiki capabilities.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you the template and saying if you think it is a good idea, copy and paste it in or tell me you want me to add it to most denominations and I will add it to the few dozen articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what. I will put it on all the pages and editors will decide if they want to keep a combined one or a single one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting
Nelson Bunker Hunt and Silver Thursday are the closest links to the great silver melt that I could find.-RHM22 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The remaining issues I will work through later in the day as I have to leave my hotel shortly. Yes, I would like to see that. It would be a convenience, as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. I've made a couple of changes to the template, we do have an article for Mercury dime, it's currently at DYK and I'll probably have it here next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that template! Maybe we should modify it to include all U.S. coins. Right now, it leaves out the odd denominations and gold coins only.-RHM22 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to design it so that each country can have a similar one. I think a separate template should be made for obsolete coinage denomination histories for each country and linked in a below ref. Consider how long the current coinage histories might be for countries that have been around for more than 235 years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I wouldn't consider it a concern yet. At this point, the only country that has a significant portion of its coins covered on Wikipedia is the United States. The United Kingdom has a fair amount of coverage, but we're a long, long way away from completion for that.-RHM22 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should individual denomination templates be removed/redirected into this? I will post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics, where a centralized discussion can be held.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, RHM22 and I are the active numismatics writers. I don't think we need both templates, I suggest deleting the individual denomination ones. Tony, I've addressed your concerns above. Are you content? BTW, I will probably not be on much before Sunday, I will deal with your talk page request then, I only have a few minutes and do not like to evaluate while rushed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, with 18 notes. I disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what policy is in this regard. I guess we can hash it out at WP:FAC. I usually prefer to do so once I have more than 10 or 12 refs, but not sure what consensus is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text should adequately cover the minting table with summaries like SF only minted coins for x years from YYYY-YYYY and such.
The point in having a table is to summarize data. The article is comprehensive, and does not require self-repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so you are officially dragging me into the WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mintages were quite low at the time. It is very common for branch mints not to strike a low-mintage coin, see Saint-Gaudens double eagle and its table.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For such a short article (for a FA-aspirant), an opportunity to explain this in the text should be welcome. However, I will come follow at FAC to see what goes on in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will have to be brief, and done mostly by an appropriate link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll hash this point out at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that you feel needs doing? I do not consider a GAN nomination a lengthy dialogue, but rather an evaluation with the opportunity to do corrections. And this article is far beyond some of the crap that's at GA. I will wait two more days before touching this to allow for additional reviewer comments, and then will examine the suggestions. After any work I may do in response, I would ask for an evaluation to be completed, either pass or fail. I believe the article is close to, if not at FA quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be complaining that I have concerns. Of the 7 issues raised above 6 of them must be addressed before the article is passed. You can't toss images around in wrong sections when the text about them is in other sections and you shouldn't just add images without text that makes them relevant. That is just the first two concerns. You are free to refuse to correct my concerns and demand an evaluation without doing so, but it does not make sense to me that you would want to do so if your objective is to make this an FA. Most of the concerns are things that you will need to address for FA. If you want easy reviewers there is a note section in the GAN template for the talk page. Next time put text in the notes section that says, "I want a reviewer who will not point out many concerns and give me a quick decision".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else? There's still another 47 hours. I prefer to have the goalposts planted firmly in the ground, rather than on wheels.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The matters requested are either responded to or done. I ask that the article be passed or failed per WP:WIAGA, and I ask that the reviewer heed the admonition against imposing personal standards set forth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can pass this if you can tag all the appropriate images on commons with {{money-US}} and fix ref 17.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this acceptable. There's a strong suspicion in the circumstances that your intent is to throw monkey wrenches into the works at FAC. Accordingly, as the reviewer's neutrality can reasonably be questioned, the article is withdrawn.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ill-intentions and as much as Sandy and I don't get along, I do know she has a good nose for reviewers attempting to help and reviewers that should be ignored. I honestly don't know how to handle a couple of issues that need broader consideration in terms of directing the article toward what is generally preferred. I consider your statement of suspicion a borderline personal attack. You are the only nominator who has expressed frustration at my concerns (having also done so once before at Talk:The King and I/GA2). I am approaching 100 reviews and you are my only complainant, so in terms of wondering whether it is me or you, I would be careful with my suspicions. However, I know you have a long track record as a nominator and am not interested in tracking down what it is. It is conceivable that I am your only problem reviewer. In the future I will avoid your nominations, but if this ever goes to FAC, I will be their to attempt to continue guiding what I have started here. I do expect that it would pass FA with or without my involvement and intend to do nothing to change that outcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What amazes me that after the debacle you made of The King and I, in which you imposed personal standards while admitting you knew nothing about the subject, destroying that article improvement project, that you would have the chutzpah to review another of my articles. Everyone has their own point at which frustration overcomes civility, and after last year's WikiCup, I am sure you are aware of the level of esteem with which you are held.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that there were others who shared many of my concerns at King and I. Again, I will repeat that after 50 GA sweeps reviews and about 40 GAC reviews you are the only person who I have had a problem with during the review process. although one or two may have gone to GAR for clear policy debates, you just have a problem with me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary for next reviewer
Those matters have been promptly fixed now that they have been brought to my attention. Note that one of the difficulties was the former reviewer's merry moving of goalposts, both here and in previous reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me if this continues to be a candidate for my review. I would now pass the article, but this nomination has been withdrawn awaiting another review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your review has been closed. That you continue to edit here is a mystery to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you understand the big mystery. If you keep replying with stuff that needs further explanation, I will probably keep replying.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article had other issues, which I was unsure about and are as follows:
    1. The article mentions the Silver run, for which there is no article, and links to Silver Thursday. This is somewhat confusing because Silver Thursday explains a price crash and the effect at issue here is a price bubble. The two go hand in hand, but it is not so clear at first blush.
Certainly, I am not responsible for the inadequacies of other Wikipedia articles. Possibly a direct article should be written on the silver boom and bust of 1980; I have no interest in doing so and cannot see anything in either WP:WIAGA or WP:WIAFA that says I need to improve other articles to see this one promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Nominator has a preference not to augment the encyclopedic content in the tables with prose explanations in the main text. I find this to be a problem, but was willing to address it at FAC with a broader set of eyes guiding the issue in the right direction, whatever that may be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in the least unusual for branch mints to omit striking a denomination in the era before mint sets covering all mints. That being said, it is not something which sources cover. The reader is furnished with a complete list of dates and mints. Unless there is a showing that there is additional information from RS that I am choosing not to use, that's the end to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and renominated, which is probably against GA policy of cherrypicking reviewers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would be stronger with a link and a quote and a showing that I am gaming the system to get the article promoted. After all, I could just accept your proffered promotion!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But instead you offered to do so with conditions and I explained why your offer was unreasonable. You swept my explanation under the rug.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After some research into the matter, I do not believe TonyTheTiger's final expressed concern to be justifiable. According to WP:GAR, "If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!" That seems to imply that if you are dissatisfied with a review, that after it closes you can renominate and seek another reviewer. I find no policy akin to what he claims to exist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not say you can close a nomination and then relist it. It is a policy about "delistings or failed nomination". You decided to close an active nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the policy you accuse me of breaking? Unless the argument is that if it isn't mandatory, it's forbidden?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be stated in policy. I don't see it at WP:GAN. However, it is common sense that if we let everybody close out nominations mid process by withdrawing them, it might be impossible to ever fail a nomination. Everyone would run around claiming they want another reviewer once their reviewer starts to be critical. Also, pulling the rug out from under inexperience reviewers might discourage them from participating in the process. I understand that part of your problem with my review style is that I continue raising issues as I see them during the review instead of letting a review be based on the ability to address initial concerns. However, my concerns are real and you should not be trying to run from them because sooner or later they must be addressed if you want an FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not at GAN, it does not exist. Next time please do not make accusations of breach of policy without ducks in a row. Again, you are inflaming things. I am trying to avoid contact with you. You seem determined to get into my face. Does it really help to be leaving me messages on my talk page about matters I gather are not urgent? I respectfully suggest that you refrain. It is unwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am now unwatching this page. If you have any further commentary on this issue hit my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it is best for the project that we avoid each other for a time. Please do your part in that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franklin_half_dollar/GA1&oldid=425861019"