Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynchburg Sesquicentennial 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2018 [1].

Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was issued for a rather small Virginia city in 1936. There was no particular scandal, but the coin is made more interesting by the fact it was the first U.S. coin to show a living person by him or herself (to date, I think it has happened only three times). Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil edit

Have read through over last hour and made some trivial copy edits. This is the usual accomplished stuff by this editor; very tight writing. Support on prose; for some reason the phrase "with no known hoards" tickles my imagination. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I second Ceoil's comments. I've made one trivial amendment and am thoroughly satisfied with the current text. Tim riley talk 16:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique edit

Background

  • Profits from the sale of coins were used to defray the cost of the anniversary celebrations. — Any idea what the costs were?
The sources don't go into that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you think about including some background information on the general practice of issuing commemorative coins at the time?
That's what I've tried to do with the information that the government didn't sell them, but a private group. What more do you think we need?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the other articles on commemorative coins, it seems as if it might have been a common practice at the time to have special coins authorized by the government in recognition of certain events. In the Coinage of the United States template at the bottom, the vast majority are from 1900 to 1936. What made commemorative coins so popular during these decades? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone into it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

  • Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar — The convention seems to be a hyphen (Sesqui-centennial) with the Association, but otherwise not. Is this correct? There's a confusing "The Sesquicentennial Commission" in "Preparation," however.
Fixed that. Yes, Sesqui-Centennial seems an old usage, but it forms part of the name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no roll call vote, it passed without objection. Usual for coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "without objection" to the article, which I hope you don't object to!
  • became the Act of May 28... — Is this the official title? If so, it should be in quotation marks to make it clear what is part of the title and what is not. Otherwise, why is "Act" capitalized?
I've rephrased. It is one way of referring to an act.

Preparation

That letter is not preserved but Moore is replying to a letter and says so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • his commission had decided Senator Glass should appear on the obverse — Anything specific on why they ultimately chose him?
Not beyond what is in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The senator stated, "I had hoped there would be an avenue of escape." — Stated then, or some time afterwards?
Judging by the news stories, at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keck's models were sent to the Medallic Art Company of New York, which reduced them to coin-sized dies. — Are Keck's models extant, and if so, are pictures available? How large were they?
I believe the models would have been returned to the sculptor, at least that seemed the usual course. No idea if they are still around. Photographs are available, and appear both in the September 1936 Numismatist and in Taxay's work. I could include them if you want, although the copyright issue is mildly dodgy as Keck lived until 1951 and we don't know who took the photographs. They would have been on the order of 12 inches in diameter, which was the size that the Janvier reducing lathe could handle.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures would be nice if you think the copyright issue is resolvable, but up to you.
I think it has to wait for 2022.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • The closed parenthesis seems to be misplaced.
Massaged.
  • Who were the two living (or four total) people depicted on the other two?
Footnoted.
  • was aware of the unwritten rule that living people did not appear on U.S. coinage — Seems to somewhat contradict his "hope" in the preceding section that a law forbade it.
I've made it clearer this was a custom. No law actually forbade it (it does for paper currency, but that was a direct response to one incident). But a living person has very rarely (five times) appeared on a US coin, and never on one expected to circulate.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity (not related to this article), what was the one incident?
Spencer M. Clark.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was deemed well-deserved — By whom?
I'm just rephrasing the source on this one.
  • but as of 2017, it remains in place. — Update?
Still looking, but that's the most recent I have on it.

Production, distribution and collecting

  • They came on the market during a price boom in commemorative coins — "They" could equally mean the 13 that were held back.
I've tried to make it clearer from context that the marketed coins are meant.
  • They were formally placed on sale on September 21. — Meaning the 5,000 (or by then fewer) held back for locals?
The source isn't precisely clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • second commemorative coin boom in 1980 — Begs the question of what happened during the first one.
The first was 1936. The new matter you've requested above will help there and I've smoothed out the references to it.
  • their value helped by the wide distribution of the mintage, with no known hoards. — Why is this? One might think that hoards would create artificial scarcity (fewer coins on the market) that could drive up prices.
Yes but sooner or later they come on the market and the prices crash. And it's not a real scarcity so prices don't go up as much in advance, if the existence of the hoards is known.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • #7–10: Links?
I'm not certain it's worth it for the small number of people who seem to have Congressional ProQuest and who could easily search for the information if they do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are US Government publications, so they are in the public domain. The relevant law, for instance, is available here. Ref #10 is here. Ref #11 is here. Ref #9—which incidentally should say "4448," not "448"—is partially sourced here and here. Google Books probably has some of these; occasionally they are only available as snippet view, and you have to request full view access from Google (using the "Report an issue" link at the bottom of the page, followed by "I have a question or feedback about a book" and then "I’d like to see the entire book, and I believe the book is in the public domain"). Usually takes less than a week for them to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, will add those probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them. I avoided the gBooks link and gone ahead and given the ProQuest URL. Thank you for what look like some useful links.
As to your point about the number of people with Congressional ProQuest, the Google Books links (if indeed available) might be more helpful, but thanks for including links for each.
  • #27–28: These are probably still under copyright, but are they in a database (e.g., JSTOR) somewhere, or otherwise linkable?
I've added links though it is subscriber (ANA members, mostly I think) only.
  • Up to you, but you might consider a "last name[s] year, page#" convention rather than a "last name[s], page#" convention.
I'm going to let it stand. It works.

Sources

I know there's been discussion about whether to add a subscription tag if there's a JSTOR number, the argument being that JSTOR is sufficient warning. But this is a coin article, so I've added one.
  • Slabaugh 1975: You refer to the edition as "second ed.", but use "4th ed." for Yeoman 2018.
Good catch. Fixed.
  • Yeoman, R. S.: Is the book published under his initials, or first name?
Under the initials.

A strong article, as others have said. Comments, predominantly minor, are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. I think I've done or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up whatever was left.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Wehwalt. I've made some predominantly minor edits to the article, and added a few comments/responses above; whatever your response to them, I'm happy to support. Nice work! --Usernameunique (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and source review. I'll look over the closing comments further.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • The coin images need to clarify that photograph's copyright; coins are 3D objects so a 2D photo of them can include creative choices by the photographer and thus a photographer copyright.
These are images uploaded (as the original image was) by Bobby131313. He neglected to add a copyright tag. I enquired at WP:MCQ a while back and the response I got was that uploading them to Commons indicated an intent to license them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
License looks a bit dodgy too. I've replaced it with a copy with all the info and a proper license. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, can I just confirm you're good with the image check? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this is acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 27 December 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/Lynchburg_Sesquicentennial_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=875634604"