Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albany Charter half dollar/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

---

Albany Charter half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the commemoratives from 1936. No great scandal here, it doesn't look like anyone at the time made much money out of it; still, there's an interesting backstory. Enjoy.--15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wehwalt (talk)

Support Comments by Usernamenunique

Infobox

• 30.61 mm / 2.15 mm (0.08 in) — Inconsistent abbreviation
• Gertrude Lathrop — In the body, you give her middle initial. Also, is it worth a red link in the infobox as well for consistency's sake?

I have no idea on whether there is any MOS on this, but unless there is, I'd prefer to avoid the infobox redlink. Initialed. I will probably write a stub on her at some point just to avoid the redlinks in this and the New Rochelle article.

• Any reason for the small images? Also, I suspect you may get some push-back in the image review over the licensing.

It's what we have. And this has come up in about 10 FACs and I explain, based on an opinion I got at MCQ on this, that Bobby131313 uploading the images, as an experienced editor, carried an intent to release according to the Four Freedoms even if not explicitly stated. They've been used on the main page I believe, without objection.

Have you asked Heritage Auctions if they might license one of their images? They have quite a few listed (both sold and active), with high-resolution photographs. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

At one time, Godot13 had obtained permission from Heritage to use their images, registered with OTRS. My understanding was that only he was allowed to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

He may have formed some sort of permanent arrangement with them, but that shouldn't be an obstacle for someone else to reach out. (This is beyond the scope of FAC, by the way—it's just a suggestion.)

I've made an inquiry with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The Albany Charter half dollar, also known as the Albany-Dongan half dollar — Is it ever just referred to as the Albany half dollar?
• Lathrop's designs have generally been praised. — Perhaps more appropriate in the above paragraph, where you're talking about her designs.

Both taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Is there more information on what led to this coin in particular? As it stands, there's hardly anything.

Not really, the sources don't devote themselves to that topic. There is probably a backstory of who got the idea but it isn't in the sources.--Wehwalt (talk)

Often there are congressional hearings that specifically address the one coin or other material like the book in New Rochelle that over time gets into secondary sources. I haven't seen any here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit more info here; it suggests that the coins were for the event, although granted, the article is from a year after plans for the coin were designed. It also mentions that one could obtain a certificate for the coin at the event, which might be worth adding to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not going to use it. The most useful thing it says is that they planned to issue certificates for coins at the Dongan celebration. I don't want to say that without evidence the certificate actually were issued, which at a brief search, I don't see anything on. The info on the beaver being early money is interesting but they don't say there's a connection between that and why there's one on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor — So the group didn't even exist at the time of the proposed coin?

Not in that form, anyway. All three were civic people. The chair was a banker; I've seen several times banks hold new commemorative coins as part of their cash reserves so the designated group did not have to advance all the money up front. But I couldn't say for sure.

Legislation

• a commemorative half dollar in honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of Albany — So that was the (ostensible) purpose of the coin. Perhaps it belongs in "Background"?

The footnote explains that Congress erred here. They meant of the Dongan Charter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Preparation

• The part about Lawrie is confusing. Why did she bring the letter? What "designs in his letter" are being referred to? What (if anything) did Lathrop accomplish at the offices of the CFA, if she then immediately decamped to the Philadelphia Mint due to Lawrie's concerns (which seems to have already known about, as they appear to have been included in the letter)?

All the sources are not complete on this, Lawrie was a New Yorker and she probably saw him in NYC. She would have seen Sinnock in Philadelphia and O'Reilly in Washington. Lawrie was the sculptor-member of the commission, and coins are sculptures, so he would have been consulted for a preliminary opinion. Having received it, and not fully satisfied, she went to Washington by way of Philadelphia, gathering support as she went. She also went to Washington on the New Rochelle coin. Lathrop knew people (she knew FDR) and she politicked for her designs.

That makes more sense now. If there's a way to add that—that Lawrie was politicking for her design—without resorting to synthesis great, otherwise no big deal.

• splendid coin — Whose words?

Sinnock. I'll make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Design

• The word "Liberty" on this coin — The other two uses of "Liberty" are in all caps.

It's in a quotation mark and while I understand there are some who say that you should bring the article's style inside the quotation marks, I prefer not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• "has always been considered pleasing by numismatists". — If you're using logical quotation, than I believe most of the other quotations should have the punctuation following the end quotation mark as well.

I"m not sure what you mean. My understanding was that quotes that contain a complete sentence from the text should have the punctuation (the period, usually) inside the quotation mark, otherwise not. Do I vary from that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's generally my understanding as well. The one variance I see is in the last sentence of this section: "that the coin ... positive precision.". Is that a complete sentence, you're just altering "That" to "that" without a "[t]"? If so, is the omission of brackets intentional?

Minting, distribution and collecting

• The committee wrote to O'Reilly in February 1937, wanting to know the procedure for returning unsold coins, and in 1943 ... it returned 7,342 pieces for redemption and melting — Just to be clear, they asked for instructions for returning the coins within months of purchasing them, but then waited six years to do so?

Yes. They continued on sale to the public and they tried to shift the lot to Kosoff.

• What were the proceeds used for?

Sorry for the delay, I was looking through sources. I've added a sentence on the law requiring that they be used to defray the costs of the anniversary celebrations.--fWehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• in 1954 it became known that the State Bank of Albany had some 2,000 Albany half dollars — This might fit better after the sentence ending with and reached $4 by 1950.

Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• A photograph of the brochure and/or boxes might be a nice touch to the article. Any that you could get a license for? I see some of the boxes were auctioned some years ago.

Good idea. Front cover of the holder is two dimensional and so can be easily used, and I"ve added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• #7 reads "Page 6257–6258." Does {{USCongRec}} have a way of displaying "Pages" instead of "Page"? Also pinging Dcmacnut, who created the template.

Not that I am aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Duffield, Frank (uncredited) — How do you know Duffield is the contributor, if uncredited?

He was the editor and these were pieces that were written by the editor. His name of course appears as editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency (March 11, 1936). — Should have a paywalled logo for consistency

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read, Wehwalt. It would be nice to have more background about the coin—why it was proposed, what the money was intended/used for, etc.—but otherwise in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed the points individually including that the money was to go to defray the anniversary expenses. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. More background would still be nice, but if there's nothing in the sources, then there's nothing to add. Minor responses above, though nothing to subtract from my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

Hello. I will get to the review proper in a day or two, but I noticed your description of the beaver gnawing at the maple branch on the obverse. To my mind, he seems to be holding it more fully in his mouth than he would in gnawing, and the branch, a leaf-bearing one with three leaves, is too thin for gnawing anyway, even for a hardwood. In the Albany seal, however, he is gnawing at the stump of the tree he has brought down. Do the sources describe it as gnawing? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I borrowed the word exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The problem areas are in italics. No judgment is implied. You don't need to reply. If you do and disagree, I will not contest.

Lead

• It was designed by Albany sculptor Gertrude K. Lathrop (prefer the definite article to the zero article before Albany? Can explain the reasons if you'd like.)

• In 1936, ... coins for issuance, including some of mostly local significance. (primarily?)
• These included the Albany piece, wanted by city officials to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1686 grant of its municipal charter by Thomas Dongan, governor of colonial New York. (it is applied to city officials; wanted: authorized?)
• The authorizing bill passed through Congress without opposition; though amendments added additional protections for coin collectors. ( "additional?" assumes some knowledge of the existing protections on the part of a reader)
• ... the Philadelphia Mint coined 25,013 Albany half dollars (13 were examples for the Assay Commission and thus not for circulation—the subject of the following sentences)
• and a hoard of over 2,000 was sold by a local bank in 1954 (at what price? Do the sources say?)
• The Albany half dollar catalogs in the low hundreds of dollars, but the original packaging may sell for more. (Nice)

I have edited a version of the lead, addressing these issues, and then self-reverted. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Background, Legislation, Preparation, Design, Minting

You can find the review at User:Fowler&fowler/FAC review of Albany Charter half dollar

You have some nice sentences. I've offered a few ideas for revision, which you can also view in the article. You may take them or leave them.

You have used some old sources, bordering on the primary, which is OK for an interpretationally stable field such as numismatics but would be problematic in a political history article. But their general use in FACs is something that should be clarified by the powers-that-be.

(Off-topic 1) I still maintain that the beaver is not gnawing. He is holding the branch in its mouth scuttling his busy way to his lodge (in contrast to the plowman homeward plodding his weary way). I have some support at the NGC site, which says, "with a maple branch in its mouth." From Lathrop's description, it seems that the branch was added independently, see my review, as an artistic device. Why did they use gnawing? Is it because it is a cuter word, more conducive to selling? I don't know.

(Off-topic 2) I collect coins after a fashion. This article has made me more aware of all the little things that go into their making.

For all sorts of reasons, on-topic and off, I'm happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm working through your suggestions--thank you for the review and support--but I've been researching the beaver. Lathrop does not use the word "gnawing" in her description of the designs, but she doesn't focus on what the beaver is doing with the branch. However, there are two distinct sources from 1938 that use it. There is some Revolutionary War numismatic material (medals and banknotes) that use a beaver gnawing a tree as a symbol of perseverance and industry, especially in the struggle for independence, but that doesn't prove much. The beaver's forepaw is on the branch, which would seem to me to argue against the branch being moved. Vermeule's is a pretty authoritative treatment and he goes for the gnawing. I don't see how I get out of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Yes, absolutely. "Gnawing" is majority usage in the sources, and your hands are tied. Yes, he does have his paw on the branch, so he's not going anywhere. (I threw that in as a silly flourish to contrast the busy beaver with the tired plowmen in Gray's elegy, disregarding the logical contradiction.) And he is definitely gnawing on the stump in the Albany City seal. But when beavers gnaw on wood, or when humans such as I gnaw at corn on the cob, they do so with their front teeth, and what they gnaw at is only partially in their mouths. The animated scene on the obverse seemed to belie that notion. On the other hand, dogs do gnaw at bones and do so with their molars. When I wrote that, I was looking out on the woods that fringe our house, the oak, maple, pine, and fir. The leaves on the maples are gone, but the oaks do have stragglers. The leaf-bearing branches seemed too thin to require gnawing in the manner of a dog, nothing like bones, or so my thinking went. But then I'm no a zoologist, and Lathrop does have the artistic license to present reality in her unique style. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• outside the US, it may not be realised that Albany is the state capital, perhaps mention in lead?
• "catalog" isn’t a synonym for "sell" here (even when spelt properly!)
• but the original packaging may sell for more missing "in", or does it really mean that?
• were remaining Dutch property claims either Dutch property claims remained or were outstanding Dutch property claims

I've addressed these. I avoided "sell" because a catalog isn't a price list, it's an opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. No complaints of beavers gnawing or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suport. Just a few nit-picks. Do we need hyphens here "three member committee" (three-member) and here " 250th anniversary celebrations" ( 250th-anniversary celebrations)? And I always prefer "several" to "a number of". Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I hyphenated the first, removed the "250th" from the second and changed the third as you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Close to supporting. A few comments (actually all minor points except the second one):

• Background: "and thus entitled to fees": I wasn't sure this phrase was important to the short background, but if I've missed its significance, no worries.

I felt it was important to say because it shows why the position was worth having, "secretary" of an area doesn't necessarily convey that.

• "The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor, consisting of not fewer than three people." / "a committee of at least three people appointed by Albany's mayor be empowered to order the coins from the Mint": Seems repetitive, especially in such close proximity to each other. Can one of the instances be cut?

Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "three member committee" / "250th anniversary celebrations": Agree with Graham Beards above that these would better hyphenated, especially the first of these.

Did that. Cut the 250th.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Design: In the third paragraph of this section, both Bullowa and Vermeule both talk about the symbolism in the coin; you could consider linking their similar points by putting their statements beside each other and—if you don't think it's forcing things—by using a linking word like "similarly" or "likewise" or another word if it works better. Bowers' "pleasing" design and Vermeule's "considerable appeal" could possibly also be joined, maybe by moving this part of the quotation to after the symbolism part (i.e., breaking up the longer quotation into two) and putting Bowers at the end after Vermeule. Anyways, these are just ideas and minor suggestions. No worries if you'd prefer to keep things as is.

I reversed the order of Bowers and Bullowa. I think the views are distinct enough not to warrant a "similarly".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done or responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the changes. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I see the discussion on images at the top but looks the licensing still needs a formal review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems like all licences and copyright tags check out. Images are also suitably placed. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Pleased to pick up the Source review, which I think is still needed? I'll complete this weekend. I'm afraid an Image review is above my paygrade. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I gathered from the above that Usernameunique had looked but no harm in more eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've put in a request for an image review at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ian, I don't think it'll be much trouble! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ISBN number consistency

• I know all ISBNs lead to Rome, howsoever cited, but I think there's a preference for consistency in the style. At present we've got

four in the style XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X (the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXX-XX-X (the 1st);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXXX-X-X (the 3rd);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X (the 7th).

For consistency, I'd probably adopt the most prevalent, that is the 3 digit-1 digit-3 digit-5 digit-1 digit (XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X) style. Another editor did once try to explain the hyphenation system to me, International Standard Book Number#Registrant element, but I must confess to not fully understanding it.

I ran one through the ISBN converter, online, and did it twice. It came back with 3-1-7-1-1 so I've standardized as that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Richard S. Yeoman - any reason why his initials only are given, unlike all the other authors (except Q. David Bowers)? He's Richard S. in his article. I see you use initials in the main text, so just ignore if he's known as R.S. in the numismatic world.

He is conventionally referred to as R.S. and that's what it says on the front cover of the edition beside me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Publication locations for magazines - this may also be above my paygrade so ignore if it is, but is there a reason which the Numismatist and the US Government Printing Office don't have locations? They appear to be Federalsburg, MD. and Washington, D.C., respectively. But it could be that MoS says not to use them.

• I don't see the utility of it. What is the reader going to use it for? The Numismatist is now out of Colorado Springs where the ANA's offices. So I am being consistent by not including locations for magazines and the MOS doesn't say I have to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bullowa, David M. - uber-picky but should the publication location be New York, NY, as per Swiatek and Breen?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have clicked through to all the accessible on-line sources and they all check out.

• Minting, distribution and collecting - not a Source review comment, but the double, proximate use of "today" in the final para. jars slightly with me; "Both the booklet and the envelope it came in are highly collectible today. Even scarcer today are boxes..." Is the second necessary?

That's my picky lot. Looks set fair for a well-deserved bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been dealing with a winter bug. All done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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