Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois Centennial 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) 11:58, 21 June 2017 [1].

Illinois Centennial half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the only classic commemorative to show Abraham Lincoln, and the handsome portrait of Lincoln without the beard is worth the four bits. Although they'll run you a bit more than that today ... enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp edit

First read-through:

In the lead, possibly you wanted to have the designers in the first paragraph and the design in the second paragraph? But did you think about maybe combining "The obverse was designed by Chief Engraver George T. Morgan; the reverse by his assistant and successor, John R. Sinnock" and "The adopted design features Abraham Lincoln on the obverse, based on the statue by Andrew O'Connor, and an adaptation of the Seal of Illinois on the reverse." There is some overlap there. But it's just an idea.
The lead seems possibly a little short. The whole long Legislation section is summarized in one sentence. Would it be worthwhile to find more details to add? Right now I'm just reading through quickly and don't have any immediate suggestions. But I'm sure I could come up with some.

I've played with the lede some to address both concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some details about the design and the text on the coin are repeated in both the Preparation and Design sections. I understand that some of the details are relevant to the design negotiations in the Preparation section, but I wonder if there is any clever way to avoid the repetition.

One idea could be to combine the two sections into one. I don't know if that's the only possible solution, but it could be one solution. Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a second, more detailed read-through soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've done those things. I'm grateful for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

"A bill that would accomplish this, H.R. 8742, was introduced into the House of Representatives on January 16, 1918 by that state's Loren E. Wheeler." / "James L. Slayden of Texas asked what the cost to the government would be, but Wheeler did not know." Perhaps make it clearer for the reader that the House of Representatives and "the government" refers to the federal government. If a reader doesn't catch onto this, it may be confusing about costs to the state vs. the country. Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. I saw your edit. I'm a bit dubious about "be" instead of "were" but I'll let it sit a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "be" is what I would naturally use as the subjunctive form with "on condition that". But there may be regional differences vis-a-vis the usage of the subjunctive? If "be" sounds very odd to you, by all means, please revert. I'm almost done my review. There are just a couple of places I want to have a final peek at, probably in the next day or two. Moisejp (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment:

"He had been to see Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Neither had any objection to the legislation, though McAdoo explained that the problem with commemorative coins was that they did not sell as well as expected, and many were returned to the Mint for melting. Wheeler stated that the coins would be taken by the State Treasurer of Illinois and that there would be no returns. James L. Slayden of Texas asked what the cost to the federal government would be, but Wheeler did not know." It sounds like Wheeler saw McAdoo and Baker previous to going to speak before the committee, and that McAdoo also told him his concern previously. Then it sounds like Slayden spoke at the committee hearing, but it's not clear where the transition is between the interaction previous to the hearing and the interaction at the hearing. Was it at the hearing that Wheeler said there would be no returns? Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I'm happy to support now. Moisejp (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon edit

Nice article. Very little to quibble with. Clear prose. Which is all I can talk about.

I would make State of Illinois and the Union both links
with an amendment, and the bill was considered on May 21, 1918. -> this threw me off a little, as I thought you were not going to describe what the amendment was. I had to read the next sentence before I realised that. So perhaps a little rephrasing would help? Perhaps the "bill was considered on May 21, 1918." bit can come later?
to be replaced with E PLURIBUS UNUM -> although a link, it would be good to add a little bit here along the lines of "motto of the .."
exceptional specimen -> this makes me curious: what is so special about it?
formatting of the references seems impeccable. Something I aspire to :)
I will do a spot check of sources later.

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done those things. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I support.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

Two niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to aid those in need of aid because of World War I.—close repeat of "aid"
many of her sons—I think we have abandoned pseudo-genders for ships, countries etc, perhaps write as a direct quote

I've gotten those. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

refs 1&4 (House hearings) links to the source listing of "United States House of Representatives Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (1918). Commission to Standardize Screw Threads. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office." - this is an easter egg link - if someone prints out the article/etc they won't be able to figure out what reference citation #1 is pointing to.
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've deleted the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All the images look good. The five images are all public domain and have proper licensing details. The three non-infobox ones have suitable alt text. The two infobox images are required to be over 150% of their 30.61 mm diameter, which they are. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2017 (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) 11:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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