The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is in terrible shape and would need nearly a total rewrite to become FA class again; just fixing the sources alone would require a great deal of work from a large number of editors. There's almost nobody watching it; nearly every edit this year has been made by an IP, with an occasional bot fix or vandalism revert.
There are several unsourced paragraphs "History," "Seated Liberty," "Winged Liberty Head" and other sections.
Design history contains some percentages that aren't in the citation.
Per the summary style guidelines, the header on the Roosevelt dime should, at the very least, contain a summarizing paragraph under the {{Main}} template. It does not.
Is the mintage figures list even needed? It's a really butt-ugly list and it's unsourced.
Almost every citation seems fishy: CoinResource, CoinSite, US Coin Values Advisor all look like personal sites with no indication of authorship.
The Dictionary.com reference is not formatted properly, containing a bare URL.
Overall, the article is in terrible condition and mostly cited to an unreliable-looking website (CoinSite). It's blatantly obvious that this was promoted back in 2007, before FA guidelines were quite as strict. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for someone to salvage this article would be to go through with some reference books on US coins. I don't own any.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the commercial coin merchants used as image sources claim that they hold copyright over the images. These claims are unlikely to be enforceable. In the United States, simply scanning or photographing items already in the public domain is not considered sufficient to create a new copyright. Furthermore, merely arranging two images side-by-side so that the obverse and reverse of a coin are depicted together does not require either great skill or any creative input. Consequently, in my opinion, and as I understand it in the opinion of wikimedia, these images are in the public domain. The article meets the criterion for images. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of the citation style is very poor. More worried about the quality of the citations themselves and the research they represent. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Almost no edits have been made to the article since the FAR was initiated, and nothing that significantly improved the sourcing of the article, which is the largest problem. Multiple unreliable sources (listed in the above FAR), information in the lead that is not in the body, large amounts of the article not sourced at all (much of this marked with valid citation needed tags), no alt text, etc. I agree that the mintage figures could be presented in a much nicer way that doesn't take up so much space, and they also need to be referenced, as they are some very specific figures. Improperly formatted citations (bare URLs and improper capitalization). Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
