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 SandyGeorgia 05:03, 27 May 2011 [1].

---

Jefferson nickel[edit]

Jefferson nickel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jefferson nickel/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Jefferson nickel is a fairly ubiquitous item of trade, yet it has an interesting history. If you've ever noticed Monticello on the nickel seems far more imposing than in real life, read on.Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1c/2c Support No real issues; Consider contracting Massachusetts in the Bibliography per your US state style. I spot checked 3 random online sources for copyright, plagiarism, paraphrase, support of claim cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• It says "5 cents (.05 U.S. dollars)". There should be a zero before the decimal.
• It says " 5.000 g (0.1615 troy oz)". That's a remarkable precision and looks particularly dramatic when described in troy ounces. Do we know the precision? Many coin weights are expressed in grams only. The troy ounce value for recent coins (within the last 1 to 1.5 centuries?) seems to me to add little value, has this issue been discussed?

It has not been discussed, and I'd welcome hearing the views of others interested in numismatics. It might be that a distinction should be drawn between precious metal coins and base metal coins. And yes, the nickel is exactly five grams. I'll-fated decimalization efforts in 1866 and 1882, see Shield nickel and Liberty Head nickel for details.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to see the views. It's an interesting issue for many coin articles. But this article can proceed through the FA process without it being resolved. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy weights are used to measure all metals (not just precious metals), but I agree that it is useless on most coin articles unless the coin is known for its troy weight, such as bullion coins. The infobox has a field for grains, but that is also somewhat archaic. If anyone is interested, I would be glad to add a new field for weight in standard ounces.-RHM22 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding weight in ounces, to do otherwise invites confusion I think, for precious metal coins especially. Thank you..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there's now a field for ounces. Just add "Mass_ounce" to the infobox and put the weight in there.-RHM22 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass_ounce? Mais oui! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Early production; World War II changes (1938–1945)", "Later production (1946–2003)", and "Westward Journey nickels; redesign of obverse (2003–present)".

• I think the sections and titles could do with review. It took me a while to work out what the headings meant and I see now the semi-colons indicate that they combine two ideas. I think it would be simpler to understand with just one idea per heading.
• If the headings relate to time spans, it might be simpler to understand with the more direct format of 'Production <start date>-<end date>'.
• I have no idea what 'Westward Journey' means. It's used as a title but not explained. I recommend that any phrase in a title should be self-evident or explained.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've played with it. Is it better now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:1945-P-Jefferson-War-Nickel-Reverse.JPG needs licensing info for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• 1946–2003: "A number of leftover reverse dies with S mintmark were used in Denver". Should "an" be added before S? I'm not sure if that's the intention or not.

I've written it correctly but you are right, it sounds sort of jargony. I'll toss in the "an" as requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 2003–present: Not a big fan of the in-text external link. It seems like it would be more appropriate as a reference or external link at the bottom of the article.
• "from a journal entry by William Clark. Clark...". Another of these situations where a word repeats from the end of one sentence to the start of another. This should be simple enough to fix, maybe with "He".
• The Walter Breen book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no cites to it.
• In reference 24, should the city name be included as part of the newspaper's name and italicized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've ascertained that the name is properly The Register-Guard and so I've used the city name as a location, in parens following the name. I think I've caught all your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My comments have all been dealt with and this looks like another nice coin article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support, I enjoy this one didnt notice any points of concern, not even minor one like I the Bufflo nickel this is IMHO a featurable article Gnangarra 13:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Racepacket (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the convenience of the delegate, I've taken the liberty of bolding Gnangarra's support. By the way, Racepacket was the GA reviewer, and I thank the two of them and Giants2008 for their work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Consistency: US vs. U.S.
• "his house, Monticello": either remove or add a comma.
• "modernistic": "modernism" is "a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression" (M-W). Was this what was meant?

Yes, Bowers specifically uses the word modernistic. It is what was meant, and what was resented by the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "animus": too strong for the context.
• "the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau": you know the drill.
• "sculptor/engraver": WP:SLASH recommends against slashes.
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Thanks for the fixes. These are my edits. I used to change "From 1971," to "From 1971 on," or "Starting in 1971," in AmEng, but I'm seeing the Britishism more and more in American prose. I still don't use it myself, but I can't say it's wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will confess to have been bothered slightly by it. I'll keep playing around.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toSupport: A few mainly minor issues:-

• Infobox: I have some difficulty following the various designs indicated. I can work out that the large designs are the current obverse and reverse, and that the smaller designs are earlier versions, but the labelling does not make this entirely clear. In particular the four reverse designs for 2004 and 2005 are confusing labelled ("upper" and "lower", but not "left" and "right"). Perhaps all will be clear when I absorb the text, but I think an infobox should have a stand-alone clarity.
• Lead
  • "Beginning in 2006,..." → "Since 2006..." ?
  • Perhaps the phrase "replacing the 1913 Buffalo nickel" could be added to the first sentence?
• Production
  • "Production of the Jefferson nickel began at all three mints..." Previously you have referred to "the Mint" with no indication that it was a tripartite body
  • "...this alloy began to be coined into nickels beginning in October 1942" The "began ... beginning" proximity is ugly. Suggest replace "beginning in" with "from"
• 1946–2003
  • It's not obvious to non-coin people what "the 1950-D" refers to.
  • "Proof coin sales resumed in 1968, but with coins struck at the reopened San Francisco facility". Don't follow the "but", suggest delete (or, maybe, "but only").
  • "In 1968, after three years of coins with no mint marks to represent place of origin, they returned, but moved to the lower part of the obverse, to the right of Jefferson's bust." Grammar; I imagine "they returned" is intended to refer to "mint marks", but the subject of the sentence is "coins with no mint marks". The sentence needs rewording.
• 2003–present: Last paragraph: I'm not sure that "rebounded" is the best word here. In the final sentence the word "more" looks unnecessary.

As with previous coin articles the detail is spot-on and I anticipate full support very soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved. Support registered. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Dank and Brianboulton, and as I've said, to all the commenters. I have addressed Brianbouton and Dank's comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support— Graham Colm (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.