The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Fractional currency[edit]

Fractional currency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Fractional currency/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it represents a complete type set (list) of United States Fractional currency (with high resolution images), a description of all known varieties, and a succinct historical overview. Two start-class articles were recently merged, expanded, and stylistically turned into this list-class article with the addition of the illustrated and sortable table of different note types and their corresponding varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I can't find big, or any problems for that matter. I'd move section two and three from the lead, and create a section for them (they don't seem to belong there any more than the info in the "Postage curreny" section)... But this is not a must.. This is difficult regarding the spacing of early images. You need a general reference for everything which is in the tables, because I don't know where you got them from. Done. General references added for the varieties columns in both tables, and individual sources added for the explanation of different varieties in the Issuing periods and varieties table. Question, why are some sentences not sourced? Done. Some of that was the result of the merging of two existing articles. I've added sources for more of the prose in the beginning. If more sourcing is needed just let me know. --TIAYN (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments.-Godot13 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Good enough for me. --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a little bit concerned about the name of the article. To me the term "fractional currency" refers to "Coin or paper currency in a denomination less than a standard monetary unit", as per, for example, The American Heritage Dictionary or the Collins Dictionary. By my interpretation this would mean any American penny, Euro cent, Mexican centimo, Peruvian centimo, Australian nickel, etc. However, this article is only about a particular series of American fractional currency. At the same time I realize that there is not currently a Wikipedia article on fractional currency (as a concept defined by the dictionary definition quoted above). Additionally, this page, while not WP:RS itself, quotes The Standard Catalog of World Paper Money - General Issues, 6th edition, 1990 in reference to Canadian fractional currency. I would suggest that the page title be moved to Fractional currency (United States of America) or similar per project naming conventions. Alternatively, if you can demonstrate that the term "Fractional currency" overwhelmingly is used to refer to this particular set of banknotes than I would still like to see someway of mentioning the more (theoretical?) definition of fractional currency. Ravendrop 04:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the article/list. I understand your concern. I am thinking of possibilities which include United States fractional currency and Fractional currency (United States). Would either of these be objectionable?-Godot13 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go with the second one. Also, do you really need the TOC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for weighing in Crisco 1492. The name has been changed and the TOC removed.-Godot13 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Make 'coinage[1] - gold' an unspaced mdash
• Make '1 – 3%' an unspaced ndash
• -> June 1862
• Justice holding scales, Bust of Liberty and Bust of Columbia need not be italicized unless they are actual titles of the artwork (In which case the first would need to be capitalized).
• See also section generally goes before References.

Great work Reywas92^Talk 08:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Reywas92- Thanks for the review and comments. All changes have been made. The titles of the three vignettes were descriptive in nature and have been removed from italics.-Godot13 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think the lead currently summarises the theme. Certainly, the first two (text) sections seem to be absent in the intro. That's the only big-ish issue though.Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron- Thank you for your comment. I had intended the first few text sections to be the lead. I have removed the headers and done some very minor editing on the text and I hope it flows better and sets up the main tables. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support A phenomenal task, given that the subject matter is at best, obscure. Well doneCoal town guy (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The lead is very short at only one paragraph and doesn't summary the whole article, as was pointed out above. Two or three decent-size paragraphs should be the goal here. - Will work on this by putting some of the later material in the lead
• Last two words of "United States Federal Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
• The pictures could use alt text.-done.
  • The ones outside of the tables still don't have alt text, and the ones that do shouldn't have Alt= in the description. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will add alt to the ones outside the table, but I would like to clarify- I was following the MOS:ALT example by putting the alt text in the with the file description (i.e., immediately following the file name). Is this incorrect?-Godot13 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what's causing the capitalization now. The parameter is being capitalized as Alt=, which is causing the description issue. Try decapitalizing the word and that should work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, "Alt" has been changed to "alt".-Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Civil war economy: Again, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized.-done.
• "borrowed gold coin from New York City banks...'. Should "coin" be made plural? -Not in this case, it is already being used in a slightly different sense in the plural.
• Periods needed before refs 9, 10, and 13. That's something that at least one of the three supporters should have spotted during a review.-done.
• Remove comma in "January, 1862".-done.
• Postage currency: Closing parenthesis mark needed after "which led into the use of fractional currency".-done.
• From postage to fractional: "and" is needed before "watermarks to name a few."-done.
• The last sentence of this section is uncited and use terminology ("Today") that could become outdated.-done, getting page number for citation.

Last sentence in question removed as a suitable citation is not available.-Godot13 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Issuing periods and varieties: In the headings, the second word of "Features/Varieties" should be decapitalized.-done
• Third Issue: The hyphen in the features note should instead be an en dash.-done.
  • The en dash is the smaller one; according to MoS, the larger em dash shouldn't be spaced when it is used. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually done-Godot13 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 3: A colon would be nice before the quote.-done.
• In refs 7 and 9, the en dashes for the page ranges should be unspaced.-done.
• Ref 20 should have the date formatted like all of the others (3 May 2013) for consistency. You could also change all of the others to ref 20's style, but I figured this would be the most convenient way to make the cites consistent.-done (and yes, much more convenient).
• What makes Monetarylaw.com (ref 29) a reliable source?-It isn't and has been replaced. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Giants2008. They have all been resolved except where noted. I will revise the lead within the next 2-3 days. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question @Giants2008: I had intended the first three-four paragraphs/sections to actually be the lead for the list, I added headings because I thought it would otherwise be too long. If I remove the first three headings and make sure the information flows properly, is that an appropriate lead? Otherwise it seems I would be writing 3-4 paragraphs to describe the following 3-4 paragraphs and the table. Either way, just let me know and it will be done. Thank-Godot13 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008- I have removed the section headings and done some very minor editing to make the text flow as a lead. Please let me know if this change is acceptable or you would like to see something different instead. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead as-is is a bit long for my tastes, but it's workable. A couple of other problems are caused by removing the section, though. There's still one subheading which needs to be removed, and the lead is now overloaded with photographs. The gallery in particular is odd; if it's to be kept, I suggest moving it down in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 - I tried moving this around a bit: the gallery (which may or may not be tenable to keep) I moved out of the lead in between two of the tables. If it needs to go I understand, but it is a great pictorial illustration on the evolution from an initial idea to a final proof. The section on the law prohibiting living people from being on currency I moved to the end of the list. It is not really lead material as it does not have to do with the history of the notes themselves. It is important however, as the law banning living persons was caused specifically by fractional currency. Let me know if this is better and/or if something simply needs to be removed. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does look better now. The alt text issue above is still outstanding, but I'm satisfied with the rest of the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on that, if does flow better. I think (given resolution of the Alt/alt issue above) that all your comments have been addressed. - Godot13 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*With the introduction of federal paper currency, public confidence favored precious metals, and gold and silver coinage was hoarded as bullion. - Link between this and its surrounding sentences is unclear Thanks for catching that Crisco 1492. It was a single-sentence edit made just before switching direction and should have been removed. shinplasters - you just said shinplasters were another name for fractional currency, and now they are not? With the sentance removed does it make more sense? Still not clear. It reads as if fractional currency (also known as shinplasters) was forbidden before it was even released. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I see the issue, it has been corrected. Shinplasters (as an alternate word for fractional currency) was issued by the federal government (the subject of this list) and also by local merchants and municipalities (i.e., script). I have clarified that the laws against shinplasters was leveled against script, not federally-issued fractional currency.-Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Postage Currency or postage currency? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Changed throughout to postage currency. Thanks for the feedback.-Godot13 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (with apologies for their tardiness...) No worries, thanks for the review. You link some relatively common terms in the lead (e.g. gold, silver) but not some which may be useful and pertinent to the article (e.g. cent, bullion, specie payment). Done. Specie payment was linked to the specie payment act, I added a link to the word specie by itself as well. Image captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't have a period. Fixed. "paper money" is linked twice to different destinations. Fixed. cent or ¢? cent. demonination is linked second time round, not first time. Fixed. Don't think the image column needs to be sortable... Done. Not sure how the size column is supposed to sort. Not resolved. Right now it would be sorting by the size of the horizontal edge. I will either 1) remove size sortability or 2) calculate a single (hidden) surface area and use that as the size sorting principle. Preference? Doesn't look like it sorts by horizontal edge either! Keep sortability, just choose a way of doing it (and add a note saying what you're doing too). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done, see below. "Red reverse." vs "Green reverse" consistency with periods. Done. Ref 1 has a missing publication date. Added. "Financial laws of the United States 1778-1909" needs an en-dash. Dashed. Change the template to take into account the new article title. Not done. I'm sorry to say I don't know what you're referring to. Can you explain please? Again, thanks for the review.-Godot13 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I fixed it, it was the currency template at the bottom of the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking care of the template. I fixed the size sort with a hidden key so it is based on the surface area of the bank note (mm squared) and added this information to the already existing note at the top of the size column.-Godot13 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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