Talk:Lafayette dollar

	Lafayette dollar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2015.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 22, 2014 Good article nominee Listed December 4, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 6, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Lafayette dollar (obverse pictured) was the first US coin to depict an American citizen?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Numismatics: American currency Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Lafayette dollar/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "

   clear and concise", without copyvios

   , or spelling and grammar errors:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an

   appropriate reference section

   :

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B.

   Focused

   :

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are provided if possible and are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• In the second paragraph of the lead, would it be possible to list Lafayette's full name Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette and maybe provide a brief description of his significance? The remainder of the overview provided in the lead as a whole is sufficient.
• In the article's infobox, Charles E. Barber needn't be wiki-linked twice.
• Under the Background section in the sentence: "He made his way to Philadelphia, where he initially met a cold reception from the Congress." Would "received" work better here, rather than "met?"
• Should French Revolution and Napoleon be wiki-linked under Background? I also suggest wiki-linking "restoration of the monarchy" to Bourbon Restoration. These are merely suggestions.
• In the third paragraph of the Inception section, "Fundraising to build the Lafayette monument was a major component's of the commission's work..." Should this read "component" instead?
• I made several minor tweaks, so please let me know if you disagree with any of these.

I will look through them during the course of the day tomorrow and will be back to you. Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have done as you suggested in all cases. I appreciate the help and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, Lord, they're passing them out on street corners. Let me look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually yet, Obama hasn't signed it. I've bookmarked the page and once he does I will look for news coverage. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this coin is the first to depict a US citizen, is it also the first to depict a real, non-mythological, non-symbolic human? At the time of its coinage, Lafayette, if I am not mistaken, Lafayette was not yet an honorary citizen, so the US citizen depicted was Washington, and this coin is also the first US coin to depict a foreign national. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem an odd way of expressing it - as if previous coins depicted non-US citizens. I would describe it as the first US coin to depict a real historical person (rather than Liberty or an un-named character). I think Lafayette was conferred with honorary citizenship within his lifetime.Mattojgb (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus and Isabella had appeared on coins in 1892-93. Lafayette was a citizen because Connecticut and two or three other states granted him citizenship, for the most part during his 1784 visit. It's discussed in his article. I can explicitly say, drawing on sources from the Lafayette article (because the coin sources don't address this) that he was a US citizen, but I'm trying to finesse the sources. They all focus on Washington but I've come to realize that's only partially right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am glad that I didn't just "correct" this. Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article: "His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death." There's no source given for this business about horses' feet, and since the coin doesn't actually follow the convention described, is it really relevant to the article anyway? Chuntuk (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've only heard of the horses' feet rule being applied to statues - in which context it is debunked at http://www.snopes.com/military/statue.asp . Chuntuk (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the source at the end of the paragraph. You do not have to include a footnote on every sentence, the one next following in the paragraph is meant to cover it. And it's in there. It's a depiction of an intended statue, after all, though Bartlett eventually altered it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Equestrian statue#Hoof-position symbolism myth TomS TDotO (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer on where those "some accounts" may be found, but I still think the sentence about horses' feet is irrelevant to this article. If there were a properly sourced indication that the sculptor/coinmaker intended to pass some information by the configuration of the horse's legs, then it would belong in the article. But (unless we have any information to the contrary) it appears that the sculptor just arranged the horse in a way that looked best to him, and which didn't happen to conform to the convention dreamed up about such things by persons unknown (cf. Snopes article above). I suggest the sentence in question be removed. Chuntuk (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]