Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missouri Centennial 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) 15:45, 15 September 2018 [1].

Missouri Centennial half dollar edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the early commemorative coin issues, which was intended as a major fundraiser and as usual that didn't work too well. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Moise edit

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm reading through the article, and here are some comments:

Preparation:

  • "The hired sculptor could, Moore suggested, choose among these, as to which could be used to best effect, with Montgomery's approval and that of the Fine Arts Commission." I found this sentence a little confusing. I think I know what it is supposed to mean, but could you possibly rewrite it to be a little more straightforward? Moisejp (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well enough, hope you are too. I have made the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was apparently not communicated to the Missouri commission as on May 17, James Earle Fraser, a member of the Fine Arts Commission, told Moore that he had heard that someone associated with the Missouri Centennial had made inquiries with the Medallic Art Company of New York, aimed at hiring a sculptor." I also found this a little confusing, and it seems to be more of a side note than part of the main narrative (if I've understood it correctly?). Could this sentence be removed to keep the flow of main narrative tighter?
  • "The Missouri committee was informed that I would work along these lines, though I was given full latitude for any change I might advise." Is it clear enough what "these lines" refers to, or would it be better to replace it with something like "[the guidelines set by...]"? It seems like the context of "these lines" would have been explained earlier in the letter but that this context is not included in the quotation. Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design:

  • "apparently dramatizing Montgomery's desire to show the white man supplanting the Indian in Missouri "as though this was something to brag about"." Earlier in the article I assumed Montgomery was sympathetic of the Native Americans' plight in having been supplanted, but from this sentence I can't tell whether Montgomery was criticizing other people's arrogant attitude, or whether Swiatek and Breen are saying that Montgomery had the arrogant attitude (i.e., he was not sympathetic towards the Native Americans)—but I think it seems to be the latter scenario? Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just randomly looked at the Eisenhower commemorative dollar article and it appears his likeness appears twice on the obverse, and his home is on the reverse. So it doesn't seem exactly true that it's a case of "the same individual depicted on both sides". Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've seen your changes and they make the article clearer. The article is well written and engaging. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Sorry bout the Eisenhower, I even think I have one somewhere, but that is what the source said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • The three last images need dual PD US and PD old tags. The rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FunkMonk. I can't do a PD-old because Aitken hasn't been dead 70 years. The PD-US is sufficient because everything was published before 1923, in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that might be a problem on Commons, where images have to be free worldwide. So ideally, the images should instead be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia, which only goes by US copyright. Might need confirmation of this, so pinging Nikkimaria. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Commons requires images be free in both the US and their country of origin - but in this case it appears that country of origin is the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in that case it seems we are safe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only a few from me:

  • Preparation: Might be nice to give Benton's first name in the bracketed bit; his first name is probably more unknown than Daniel Boone's anyway.
  • Design: Typo in "Been stated..."., as the author's name is Breen (seen that one before in these articles).
  • "The Missouri Centennial half-dollar, in having Boone on both sides, it is one of the few...". For this to work grammatically, "it" needs to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Giants2008 do you have more to add here? For some reason, this is struggling for review a little. If nothing happens in the next few days, we may have to consider archiving. I wonder if there is anyone we could ask to take a look? Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to see it archived, it already has one support and if Giants2008 is on board ... I can probably find someone else without too much trouble and request a source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to re-review within the next couple of days. It's unlikely that I'll find anything else to comment on, but not impossible. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sarastro, A rather belated welcome back, and to let you know I'll review this as soon as I've finished on the Parliament of 1327 review I've started. If no-one gets in there before me, I'm happy to do a source review too. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

A quick glance through shows two very minor points:

  • A little duplication of links in the Design section: Daniel Boone and SEDALIA are both linked above
  • I'm not sure FN25 is right: Bowers, pp. 165–155 may need a tweak!

I'll be back tomorrow with a closer look. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a link to Sedalia in the design section, Boone I link because the earlier link was only to the last name and it's a gap between them. Thank you for looking at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on Boone. Sedalia is in the second para - "The name SEDALIA, the site of the centennial exposition, appears in exergue" - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I think they're also far enough I'd let them stand. I have a theory that people may go directly to the design section and so I'm a bit free with links.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish my review of the Parliament of 1327 article in a day or so, and if no-one has picked up on the sources, I'll do those too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at that one too when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)re[reply]
  • Support – My comments above were all taken care of and I don't have any further concerns after looking at the article again. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to come Support from KJP1 edit

Just as a marker, I'll certainly review but I'm afraid work commitments mean it will be tomorrow rather than today before I can do so. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • "The U.S. state of Missouri wanted a commemorative coin to sell at the centennial celebration" - I was a little confused as to what centennial was being celebrated, perhaps "The U.S. state of Missouri wanted a commemorative coin to sell at its centennial celebration"?
Fixed.
  • The infobox says 50,028 were minted and 29,600 were subsequently melted. The lead says "almost 40 percent of the coins were returned to the Philadelphia Mint for melting". Maths was never my strong point but isn't this closer to 60%, 59.166 recurring?
Oops. Fixed.
  • I got confused by the labelling of the two coin images in the infobox. The first (front) image is called Missouri Centennial half dollar obverse.jpg, and its description calls it Obverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar. This is surely right. But the second (back) image is called Missouri Centennial half dollar reverse.jpg while its description says Obverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar. Shouldn't this be Reverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar? This may be more of a Commons issue than an issue for this article.
  • My fault; I cut and pasted the info template. Fixed.
Legislation
  • The legislation reduced the permissible number of coins to be minted from 500,000 to 250,000, but in fact only 50,028 were minted. Do we need an explanation as to why the number was reduced?
They had to front the money. Probably more would have been ordered, but a lot of Mint correspondence of that era is missing, destroyed in the 1970s. Probably best to leave as is.
Preparation
  • "Members had made a number of suggested changes; these were implemented, and on June 9, the Fine Arts Commission approved the design" - With the preceding sentence referencing the senator, I wasn't sure whether "members" referred to members of the Senate or members of the Fine Art Commission? I'm guessing the latter, so perhaps something like, "Commission members had made...and on 9 June, the full Commission approved the design"?
  • Not sure it's needed but done.
Design
  • "Other individuals so honored on commemoratives include ... and the frontiersman on the 1936 Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar." Two quibbles. As Boone is the subject of this coin, can he be an "Other individual"? And is the frontiersman actually an individual, as opposed to a representative figure? The relevant article describes him as "an idealized head of a pioneer man". I'm afraid I'm at a loss to suggest a rewording.
Reworded. The frontiersman was from the designer's model of a statue to be built, and it is the same guy as on the statue.
Production, distribution, and collecting
  • "All of the 2★4 coins were sold, and when sales slowed of the plain variety, 29,600 were returned to the mint for melting, likely all plain". I'm afraid I'm back in what I accept is the murky world of the numbers. Surely, if "All" the 2★4 coins were sold, then those that were melted must have been all plain, no "likely" about it?
For some reason I thought wiggle room was needed, but not on the question of melting, on consulting the sources. Done.
All minor issues for your consideration, and quite possibly rejection! Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your most useful comments and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Another in a reliably excellent series. Happy to support. A few minor comments and suggestions, none of which affect my support. All relate to the "Legislation" section:

  • "admitted to the Union" - might be worth linking, as "the Union" does not immediately suggest the USA to all non-Americans.
  • "introduced in the Senate" - again, might be worth a link for the benefit of foreigners. Likewise the lower house, later.
  • "presiding officer over the Senate, Vice President Thomas R. Marshall" - this reads rather oddly to the outsider. Would it be inaccurate to simplify it as "Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, presiding over the Senate"?

That's my meagre harvest of quibbles. Otherwise the article seems to me to meet the standards of FA and of this impressive series. Tim riley talk 16:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got those, much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Support. Very fine work as usual. A few nitpicks;

  • Lead:
  • Combine the 1st and 2nd paras
  • sought a commemorative coin, rather than 'wanted', which is too informal/vernacular for the voice of a U.S. state
  • 'centennial celebration'; alliteration, maybe just 'centennial'
  • Increase rather than 'boost' sales
  • the coins did not sell as well as hoped, and almost 60 percent of the coins; drop "of the coins"
  • Legislation
  • Legislation for a Missouri Centennial half dollar was introduced; drop Missouri as already extablished
  • Idaho Senator William E. Borah, a Republican; for benefit of flow: "The Republican Idaho Senator William E. Borah"
  • stated he would object to the bill; "to the bill" is implied; "if there was to be discussion of it" - "debate" rather than discussion
  • and on February 24, the Coinage Committee recommended; I wouldn't place a comma there
  • Ohio's Warren Gard had asked a number of questions about previous coin bills when they passed through the House.[7] Gard asked Vestal whether - asked x 2; replace one with enquired or something
  • Preparation
  • The opening paragraph is very long and technical. Maybe break in two
  • explaining his view that the best course of action ; "arguing that"
  • helping to pay the sculptor's fee and the cost of the die, a total of $1,750. - "estimated at $1,750" rather 'a total'
  • Production, distribution, and collecting
  • the excess over the round number - I don't know what this means, unless its been explained above. Is this off-cuts and waste?
  • The first coins minted "minted" is redundant
    There had been little advance publicity of the coins - "of the coins" is implied. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done those things, though I've varied the wording a bit. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources edit

Formatting

One tiny formatting tweak made by me, and one suggestion:

  • Swiatek, Anthony (2012) should probably have Chicago, IL; (I know we don't bother with New York, NY, but I thought all others were supposed to have it?)
Spot checks

A little difficult as I don't have access to the ProQuest sources, so these not checked, nor the book sources that are not available online. Two web refs checked: FN29 is OK:

  • FN28: The only sale for $70500 was in 2015, not 2014

I do not have enough background knowledge of the availability of any other sources, but as Wehwalt is something of an expert in the field, I take his selection of sources in good faith. The sources used all seem appropriate and are reliable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that must have been a typo I did not catch. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 15 September 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/Missouri_Centennial_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=859735321"