Talk:Peace Dollar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peace Dollar article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Peace Dollar has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 1, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] GA nomination

I'd like to pass this article, but the large amount of edits about 2 days ago gives me pause concerning stability. Does anyone know if this article will see very large amounts of edits in the foreseeable future? I'll put this article on hold on the nomination page for now. Homestarmy 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like any edit warring or anything, just productive edits all around. It won't hurt to leave it on hold for a bit longer though, just to make sure. Kafziel 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the "stability" aspect of the Good Article process did not involve article improvements, simply reversions and wars. But if you want to keep it on hold a few days longer, that's acceptable to me. I don't plan on changing much, if anything, on the article. However, I would like to refer you to Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. I nominated when I did, rather than waiting, based on the feedback I received there. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I mentioned that the edits in recent history were all productive. I wouldn't have any problem approving this for GA, but if others have reservations about it then I don't think it will hurt to wait another day or two. Kafziel 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I was really responding more to Homestarmy's concern than yours, but perhaps my paragraph spacing leaves something to be desired. Like I said, I'm fine with waiting a few more days if that's the only concern. : ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just the content appeared to of been changing heavily so I didn't know what to expect next. For all I knew, I could of reviwed it, then a few days later the content would be compleatly different, so it concerned me :/. Homestarmy 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status

Since it seems the article won't be changing much in the future, this article probably counts as stable. I saw little sign of POV insertion, which thinking about it, im not entirely certain how one could even easily make a horribly POV article on a coin, but eh, you never know. It is well referenced mostly, seems fairly broad, and the pictures seem nice. I'd like to comment on a few things though if I may, firstly, the collectability section oddly seems out of place with the rest of the article because unlike most of the article, there are no references for it :/. The paragraph mentions something called the "red book", you might want to add it as a reference at the bottom, (prefereably with page number, otherwise it might be hard to find later) but if this book doesn't cite the whole paragraph, I think it would help if somebody gets the time to maybe find some references for it. [comment - I added a citation for the Red Book reference. Unfortunately I can't add a page number, since I didn't add the info in the first place and I only own the 2004 edition. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)]- Also, the sentence "Anyone who suspects they may have a 1921 or 1922 proof should have it examined by a professional, as it may be a forgery." reads like an advisory, and im not entirely certain if that's typical practice for coin articles or something, but whenever sources are obtained for this sort of statement, think about changing the wording to something like "Many sources advise that 1921 or 1922 proofs should be examined by professionals, as they often turn out to be forgeries", it just seemed a bit odd to me because I don't think i've ever seen Wikipedia articles have advisories in them :/ (Besides spoiler warnings) [comment - I debated about including that bit, but since an objective party has raised the concern as well, I've simply removed it altogether. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)]

I'd also like to comment on the Pittman act section, I understand how you'd need to establish background for what led to the Peace dollars creation, but that section seems to be more about the Pittman act than the Morgan dollar becoming the Peace dollar. What I propose is that you combine it with the below section, remove information that doesn't directly have to do with the Peace Dollar and things which led to the peace dollar, (I.E. the parts about the act benefiting the mining industry and sponsors and all that) put that information in the Pittman act article if it isn't already in there, and have a see also: Pittman act line for the section, it just read a bit off topic to me when I read this section :/. [comment - OK, I've blended the two sections per your suggestion, leaving in the details that I think are still pertinent to the main article. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)]

Finally, there were a few bits of unreferenced sentences I saw through the article, I specifically remember learning in history about the whole "Some people have illegal coins that didn't get melted down" bit, but I can't remember exactly what it was, but that line and the sentences below it about future coins not having silver in them could use a citation. Homestarmy 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [comment - I have added the appropriate sources for those two passages. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)]

• Thanks for the feedback. All valid points, and I will attempt to address each of them in the next few days. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, I think I've managed to address your concerns. If I missed anything, please let me know. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hmm, that was fast, nice work heh. I suggest you offer up this article for a Peer Review soon, im not sure how this article would stack up to Featured Standards, but it can't be that far :). Homestarmy 00:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the kind words, I may do just that! --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] para problem

I have a problem with this paragraph:

Production of dollar coinage did not resume until the Eisenhower Dollar in 1971. That coin, however, has no silver content, except for some sold directly to collectors by the Mint. Likewise, the Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars minted for circulation contain no silver, making the Peace Dollar the last true silver dollar.

To me the last sentence is muddy. It would make one think that SBA, Sac, and Prez dollars not stuck for circulation have silver. This is inncorrect, as they have never existed. The only way to get a post-Peace design dollar coin is the blue and brown Ikes. - Thanks, Hoshie 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)