Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Bicentennial coinage/archive2

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 GrahamColm 19:14, 17 March 2012 [1].

United States Bicentennial coinage edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This nom failed through lack of reviews several months ago, I'm bringing it back for another shot.Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why give page number in footnote for Webster 1986 and Reiter 1981 but not for Bardes 1974 or Reiter 1979?
FN 36: shouldn't italicize AP. Also, why use that type of date formatting here? Complete dates aren't given for other news or magazine sources
How are you ordering "Other sources"?
File:1976_Bicentennial_Quarter_Rev.png could use a better description
File:1976HalfReverse.jpg: suggest using the coin-specific tag instead
File:Scott1479.jpg: what does "Scott 1479" refer to? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will look though these. On Scott 1479, that is that stamp's Scott catalogue number.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus corrected the page number matters when he saw your note, for which I thank him. The other things are done. The Other Sources are now by author, with the anonymous works by first significant letter of publication name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I supported last go round and still feel this meets the FA criteria. I also note that the images all passed review by Sven Manguard last time, and have not been changed since (and it appears that they are all PD anyway). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reviews each time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Wehwalt's authoritative series on US coins is always impressive, and this article continues the high standard. Two quibbles: "momentos" is in a quote, so I didn't like to alter it, but I hope it's a typo. And "The total coinage by striking mint are shown below" seems to me to want a singular, not a plural, verb. Other than that I have nothing but praise. The article meets all the FA criteria, IMO. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typo. I just checked the source. I've changed the other bit. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is the first time I've read one of your coin article beginning to end, and I was not disappointed. Well written, comprehensive etc. I made a few copyedits, hopefully I didn't introduce any errors. I have a few minor comments on prose:
"a bill seeking a coin honoring Abigail Adams and Susan B. Anthony." Just checking, it sounds like the bill proposed a coin honoring both--it wasn't seeking one for each, right?

Correct. It was to be on the contributions of American women.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The judging was originally supposed to take place at West Point; with the delay, it took place instead at the Philadelphia Mint." Do you know why it was changed?

Doesn't say. Could have been any number of reasons. Schedule, unavailabiity of West Point now that they were installing coin presses, Philadelphia's easier to get to (especially at a time when unnecessary travel was a little bit frowned upon), or the fact that the Philadelphia Mint is within a couple of blocks of TV studios and they wanted to do publicity. I expect to pay a return visit to the ANA library, possibly this spring or summer, they may have stuff offline I didn't see on my first visit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess if it doesn't say, it doesn't say. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"From the entries, the judges selected twelve semifinalists; the sculptor submitting each received a prize of $750." I'd suggest something like "...twelve semifinalists, each of whom received a prize of $750."

I'll play with this one a bit. Technically the semifinalists were designs, not people.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a couple WP:PLUSING constructions ("with the dates appearing" & "each also with ceremonies marking the issuance" maybe try to rephrase if there is a good way to.
I'm not sure if the two "due to" and the one "because of" are being used correctly, but I can never keep them straight. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. The rules keep shifting and I prefer to do what feels naturally and let reviewers call me on it. Thanks for the review and the support, I will make those changes shortly. I'm glad you liked the article. I think very few read them from beginning to end, they just want some fact or other, and I try to keep the lede and infobox stuffed with the facts I think they'll want.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good strategy. Fixes look good. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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