Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar
- 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 Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar
[edit]
- ... that the Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar (Lewis and Clark pictured) is the only US coin with two "heads" sides?
- ALT1:(for April Fools): ... that the Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar (Lewis and Clark pictured) is the only US coin with which you cannot play heads or tails?
- Reviewed: Mr. Hooper (DYK 2)
Created by Wehwalt (talk). Nominated by Crisco 1492 (talk) at 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
Technically it passes all the DYK requirements (length, newness, citedness; sources are offline, but I'll take your word that it's verifiable and not closely paraphrased), but you really could proofread this and probably strip out some of the excessive information that isn't about this coin. First hook is good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Roscelese, the "information that isn't about this coin" is contextual information, explaining to the average reader (especially those outside the United States) why someone would want to make a commemorative coin about Lewis and Clark. This is standard for commemorative coin articles; you can't really have a complete article on a commemorative coin if you're not clear what is being commemorated. Compare the FAs Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar and Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK. The Oregon Trail one has less extraneous information than this one does, but if they're featured articles, I'll roll with it. Please proofread your article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please indicate, based on the DYK criteria, a rule which indicates that the grammar in an article has to be perfect. Or, barring that, cases in this article where the grammar is so bad that a reader's comprehension is impaired. I know Wehwalt; this is almost certainly on its way to GAN and FAC, and he writes so that he doesn't have to do too many revisions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the general idea. I try to write to a decent standard so that the article is done but for changes due to reviewer comments. I find it works better than building from a stub. I just read it through and didn't see any grammar trouble but of course I'm blinded to faults in my own writing. Most commemorative articles (except where the story is so well known it's a waste of space, Columbian half dollar for example) have a "background" section. And the Oregon one really isn't that short, it's that the entire article is longer than usual as this saga went on for 13 years and there's been recent ongoing scholarship which required lengthening the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
