Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 22:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when sales slowed on the Texas Centennial half dollar, Senator Tom Connally suggested minting 15 separate versions every year?

• Source: Commemorative Coins of the United States, p. 269 https://archive.org/details/commemcoins1991bowe

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wu shu (history)

5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 53 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

• "the whole history of Texas and all its leading personages in a perfect hodgepodge", so true! Article is x5 expanded and long enough. It appears well-sourced, although I seemingly do not have access to many of the sources. QPQ done. As for plagiarism, none found so far. I do have access to one of the two sources used for the hook paragraph (second paragraph of Production and distribution). A couple of points due to this. Firstly, Senator Connally only raised five versions, it becomes 15 only because of nerds and mintmarks and the source does not state that Connally was aware of this (indeed the source is a second-hand account from Connally's secretary). The article also says that Senator Alva B. Adams opposed the bill, but this opposition is not explicit in the source (although Adams is clearly fully up on his coin knowledge). May work through some other paragraphs later, focused on this as it is the sole proposed hook.
  As a separate note regarding the mintage table, the way the Assay coins are positioned implies they are included in the net calculations, but they do not seem to be. Also unsure what common practice is in these articles at the moment, but if the coins were intended to be non-circulating this should be stated explicitly, especially in the modern era when there are actually five (mintmarked up to 10) commemorative circulating quarters each year. CMD (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Chipmunkdavis: Thank you so much for such a thorough review! I intend to bring this to GAN pretty soon, and you've already done half my work for me. I made some fixes, esp. to emphasize that it wasn't a circulating coin. Would adding an "inadvertently" between suggested and minting work for the hook? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the fixes. I'm really not in favor of trying to find a technical way to get Senator Connally on record for something he didn't say, and I don't think it's more hooky at any rate. Just "five separate versions to increase sales" conveys the intention of the hook. CMD (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's fair enough. So just this is a-ok? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

ALT1: that when sales slowed on the Texas Centennial half dollar, Senator Tom Connally suggested minting 5 separate versions every year?

I'm not sold on "every year", for similar reasons as above. Decided to spot-check the other uses of Bowers as I have access. Not sure what it is being used for in the second paragraph of Inception. Its use in the first sentence of Production and distribution supports part of the sentence, based on the presence of the second source I assume the rest comes from that, and the use checks out without found plagiarism for the rest of that paragraph. All other uses check out. CMD (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Following up here, aiming to get a hook that won't get sent to ERRORS, which has been more stringent over the past couple of weeks. CMD (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Oops, completely forgot about this until now. I guess just, "...that when sales slowed on the Texas Centennial half dollar, Senator Tom Connally suggested minting 5 separate versions?" Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Works, I note there has been further improvement on the article as well. Good luck with GAN.

ALT2 ...that when sales slowed on the Texas Centennial half dollar, Senator Tom Connally suggested minting 5 separate versions?

CMD (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A few comments

A few comments, per request:

• I'd at least look at the Congressional Record for the passages of the coin and see if anything interesting happened. You can find it here.
• I'd make clear what the Commission of Fine Arts had to do with it. That information is included in most of the commemorative articles I did.

• "Despite this, the Centennial Committee continued commissions and sales of the coinage." What does commissions mean in this context?
• What group was designated in the statute to receive the coins from the Mint? What were the proceeds supposed to be used for?
• How did it come to pass that the 1935, 1936 etc issues came to be? Was a multiyear issue planned from the start?
• "while the committee's remaining stock of 1915 coins" 1935?
• "assay" suggest link to United States Assay Commission
• "Charles Moore, the chair of the commission, was a critic of commemorative half-dollar series," He was a foe of commemorative coins, or he was a foe of them being issued a la Oregon Trail?
• Send me an email if you want a copy of the Senate hearing on S.3721
• Get Mehl's Commemorative Coins of the United States and review pages 26 and 27. Mehl was probably more involved than that but it's worth quoting. I can send you a copy via email if you can't find it online.
• Was there any thought of a 1939 issue that was cut short by the Act of August 5, 1939 that ended all commemorative coins authorized before 1939?
• There's a useful if short article in the June 2004 The Numismatist and probably elsewhere as well.
• If you're interested, I can help out directly with a look towards co-nominating at FAC. Or I can critique. Let me know. Also, since I have permission to upload anything from Heritage Auctions, I can upgrade the images considerably. Bobby131313's have been a little problematic in the past.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I would appreciate collaborating for a co-nomination a lot, thank you so much for offering! These are all really good suggestions, I'll get right to it. IIRC we're just a stone's throw away from finishing up the last of the classical commemoratives (I think there's 8 after this? Boone, Gettysburg, Antietam, Arkansas-Robinson, Arkansas Centennial, Iowa, Booker T. Washington, Washington-Carver), and that could make for one hell of a FT. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps an article on the classic commemoratives to make a rather large featured topic. I've been playing with newspapers.com, and there was a fair amount of activity in Texas to sell these things. I'll try to do some work later in the week, I'm still polishing my British numismatics articles. Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Anything in particular I could help with before this is ready for FAC? It looks in pretty nice shape at the moment. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's in pretty good shape. I've read it over a couple of times since I stopped active work. There was a LOT of newspaper coverage of this, we won't be so lucky with some of the others. Give it a check over when you get a chance and let's conom and see where it goes. Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a lookover and it looks to be in good shape; okay if I nom now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Centennial half dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 03:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article. Good luck.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No spelling or grammar issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Seems to comply with the MoS.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are all listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything has an inline citation.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I don't think that there is anything else to cover.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are no biases.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edits on this article have ever been reverted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are fine to use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Every image has a good and relevant caption.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.