Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gadsden Purchase 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) 4 May 2019 [1].

Gadsden Purchase half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that never was, important because President Hoover's veto of the proposal was long cited by presidents of both parties in turning down such proposals, and by the very fact that Hoover spent his first veto on this and was applauded by The Washington Post for it. Times change. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

A few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First para needs tweaking to thin out the number of vetoes.
Link "El Paso"
Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo: "Guadaloupe" spelt differently from linked article.
The bill was engrossed means nothing to me as a Brit. Link or gloss?
New Mexico Congressman Simms perhaps New Mexico's Congressman Simms?

The last is proper in AmEng. I've made the other changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First para much better, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TR edit

On Jim's point, above, about engrossment, the phrase is in use in Britain for turning a draft legal deed into a finished one, but I agree a link or note would be helpful. As to Mr Simms, I doubt if British disdain for false titles will ever cut much ice with American writers, despite the animadversions of the NYT style guide. Only one comment from me: the vignette of the bloke on the Philadelphia bus is nice, but it seemed to me more a sidelight than real corroborative detail. Still, it's only 49 words out of more than 2,000, so this is hardly a point of any consequence. And that apart, the narrative is clear, a good read, and well referenced. It is evidently comprehensive, impartial and balanced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Neither official said very much of interest, this was the best sound bite I could pull out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

No spotchecks done
Refs 20 and 25 require the subscription template
There seems to be a red objection to the date format "March 10 and 17, 1930" in the sources

No other issues. The sources are otherwise consistently formatted, and appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.(Brianboulton)

Thank you for that. I've added the tags. I don't plan to alter the date format for that one, it is correct and the reader does not see the warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I've read through twice (and made a number of small edits) and support on prose and comprehensiveness. Very well-written article. Moisejp (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

There are three images, all properly licensed. It all seems good. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for both reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything preventing promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support / SN54129 edit

Nice article, sorry to be late to the party.

Can you swap the images around just a little, perhaps like this? Reason: There's a MOS thing about not having an image directly beneath a section header, so it should be on the right...Confession: I can't remember where that particular guideline actually is.

It does not apply to Level 2 headers, as I understand it. I think given the limited length of the sections, and the possibility of images encroaching, one of them needs to be under a Level 2 header, but I've made it so just one is.

Should "Congress had wisely decided" be a quote, if that's what Mellon declared? At the moment it reads as if WP considers it to have been wise.

I've rephrased slightly.

"returning it unsigned to the House of Representatives where it originated"; I wonder if the last three words are necessary. That it came from the HoR is implicit in the fact that he was returning it too them, and, in any case, the HoR's article mentions the passage of legislation in its second paragraph.

I am echoing the constitutional language there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of which, you mention the HoR three times; link the first time.
- That's all I can think of. Good luck! ——SerialNumber54129 09:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thanks. All that is done or explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good enough for me. ——SerialNumber54129 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a couple of minor alterations to fix errors (here and here), but can find no other problems that would stop this from passing the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. The deprecation of the subscription field is causing some problems right now but this article is clear of that anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Could the article either be promoted or some explanation as to what is lacking be given?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see Serial Number had not formally supported. Thanks for the review and support, and perhaps that disposes of any impediment?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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