Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connecticut Tercentenary half dollar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 [1].

Connecticut Tercentenary half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a commemorative coin that for once, was not beset with scandal. And the Charter Oak is a bit of American history they don't teach much these days. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Another authoritative article on coins from Wehwalt. A few trivial quibbles, which don't affect my support but you might like to consider:

  • Background
    • As I have said in previous reviews, "took the throne" doesn't sound quite right – shades of a coup d'etat – and "came to the throne" might be better.
    • "vend them to the public" – I don't know what "vend" has got that a plain "sell" hasn't.
  • Legislation
    • "that state's ...that committee" – perhaps change either or both "thats" into plain definite articles?
  • Preparation
    • "subject to Lawrie's criticisms being addressed, which they were, for the most part" – just checking that ref 15, a bit later in the para, covers this point.
      Yes, Taxay goes through the things that were changed, such as the pinion feathers on the eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I'm pleased to support the promotion of this article, which I think meets all the FA criteria, and will be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia articles on coins. – Tim riley talk 21:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words. I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The citation detail in ref 6 could be a little more lucid. Otherwise, the sources look in good order and of appropriate qualility and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've expanded it a bit. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • All images are appropriately licensed.
  • The templates for the Charter Oak and the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin all allow for alt text but none is currently present. I don't know whether the Css Image Crop template for the Indian Head coin allows for alt text.
  • No action necessarily required but I noticed the template used for the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin does not allow the user to click the image to find licensing information. The reader needs to go into edit mode, find the name of the image, go to Wikipedia Commons, and search for the image. That's what I did anyway, not sure if there may be a quicker method. Anyway, I'm just saying it might be inconvenient for the user, something you may or may not wish to consider. Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've split up the 2-image template and added alt text to each. I don't understand the css image crop and prefer not to mess with it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've also added alt text for the Charter Oak image. Moisejp (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor thing, the caption for the 1999 coin is a full sentence and rightly has a period, but of the other three that are not full sentences, only the stamp has a period. This is slightly inconsistent and would be better to decide one way for all three. Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the period. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anythingyouwant edit

Looks good to me. I merely inserted a pipe link to governor in the future state of Connecticut. That way, if people are interested, they can find out (e.g.) that it was really the 300th anniversary of Saybrook Colony which was distinct from New Haven Colony and from Connecticut Colony. Anyway, this is a nice little article, well done. I also added a tricentennial category. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that the Congressional Record for 1934 was volume 78, not volume 80.[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the lead that there was no debate in Congress, but in the article body you discuss a conversation between Congressmen Maloney and McFarlane, so better to simply say in the lead that there was no dissent, not that there was no debate? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the 1999 and 1907 coin pictures, I would put them side-by-side; the way they are now takes up a lot of vertical space, causing text to be sandwiched between images (as viewed on my laptop). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the Congressional Record. That seems to be the template, so I've done it manually. I've moved the 1999 image and adopted your suggestions. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise edit

Everything looks good. I made some minor copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim edit

Reads well, I find nothing to nitpick about Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only thing I was left wondering is what is the highest grade known? So, I looked it up, NGC reports one MS-68, and PCGS reports one as well, should the actual number be mentioned? Also, it appears the auction record is still correct despite the source being ten years old -- seems only 67's and below have moved since 2002. Brilliant work on a lovely coin. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for the comments. I don't think we should mention the population number as such things are subject to change and of course there may be resubmissions. I have added the deluxe Yeoman as an additional source for the record-holder. I've stopped mentioning actual grades because they are so much gibberish to the general public, but will mention tif you think it wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, likely not. That I cannot prove that the NGC and PCGS example are not, in fact, the same coin is perhaps the strongest reason not to mention the numbers. What might be worth adding as an EL is the PCGS report, not for the pop numbers, but for that lovely hi-res photo of one of the MS-68 examples. Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nice shot. I've added PCGS and will start adding that page. Due to the prejudice by some against commercial sites, I've been reluctant. Very helpful, nice to get some advice from someone familiar with the material. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Connecticut_Tercentenary_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=1138457913"