Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Long Island Tercentenary half dollar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [1].

Long Island Tercentenary half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the series of commemorative coins issued in 1936. This one at least sold well and was scandal-free.Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "a coin to mark the 300th of the first European settlement there." Is "anniversary" or something missing?
Yes. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "popularly-used": no need for the hyphen
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more on the Long Island Tercentenary Committee? Was the oversight of the coin their only activity, or was this part of a wider tercentenary celebration? I think a line or two by way of introduction would be beneficial.
I've mentioned their connection with the May celebrations.
Legislation
  • Is it the AmEng practice to put commas after dates, such as "March 11, 1936 by a subcommittee"? I can never remember fully what your US rules on it
From what I understand, many people do but I try to avoid it as it slows down the prose. I've added it here though.
Preparation
  • "having gotten off to a late start": I always shudder at "gotten", but that may just be a BrEng thing. Is there anything wrong in AmEng with saying "having got off to a late start"?
I think it is as you say, but to me anyway it sounds more natural as "gotten"
  • "placing HALF DOLLAR under the ship on the reverse": the image of the reverse at the top shows HALF DOLLAR to the right of the ship
I've clarified this was not done.
Distribution
  • "Chief Engravers" as this isn't being used as a formal title, shouldn't it be in lower case?
The numismatic sources don't tend too. I think I'll stick with them.
  • "William Barber (1869–79) and Charles Barber (1880–1917)" I think we are supposed to use the format (1869–1879) now (even when there is no obvious need to do so). I'd advise it here tho: the two formats in proximity look a little odd
I have done that.
  • "81.826 coins": comma – or was .826 of a coin sold?!
Lol. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. All very minor stuff, and another interesting article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and all working
  • Formats
  • Inconsistent p. range formats (compare 19, 21, 22 with 20)
  • Ref 23: italicization of "Coin Update"?
  • Ref 30 is missing publisher
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I don't have a strong view on capping Coin Update; I am inclined to let it stand. The others have been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

[edit]

Lead

  • For the second paragraph, it's not a good idea to say "the bill" unless you actually make clear that a bill did exist. You may want to add a sentence before this statement saying that a bill was introduced into Congress. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with this though not with a full sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clear they did well.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background and inception

My feeling is that if there was an incongruity in months between anniversary and celebration, it would be SYNTH to point it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can still give the exact time of when the Dutch landed, or were thought to have landed, without directly pointing out any incongruity that may exist. Display name 99 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This document attaches significance to June 1636 as the first land grant. The difference between June and May does not seem significant given a natural desire to attract tourists in spring.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why it can't be mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit on the Committee. I will look for a bit on its chartering (likely the state legislature). I'm not sure how much can be productively added though on the Committee's structure though.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It had both as well as a treasurer. I think this bit is to give guidance to the committee and the Mint as to who as the right to sign the order.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The part of a sentence that says "acting through its president or secretary" makes it seem like they only had one or the other. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we include anything about what the representatives said as to why commemorative coins should be struck? What did they say that the purpose was? I understand that it was for the 300th anniversary of the discovering of Long Island, but an explanation by the congressmen of why this event was important enough to merit a special set of commemorative coins would be good to include. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found anything in Delaney's own voice on this since both times it went through the House, Cochran steered it through. The Senate hearing did not specifically discuss the merits of the Long Island bill although it was before the committee, they discussed the broader issue of commemorative abuses. I will keep looking for contemporary news coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Anything you can find on that would be helpful. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked ProQuest Historical Newspapers and did not see any coverage of this. I also looked for information on the committee's formation and drew a blank. The tercentenary celebrations got ample coverage in the NY Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the committee establishment, this eBay lot seems to indicate the committee was appointed by Governor Herbert Lehman.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the number of coins needed for a complete set multiplied by having them issued at each mint with different mint marks; authorizing legislation for the coins placed no prohibition on this." This is a little unclear to me. By "multiplied," do you mean that the mints made more than was called for? I think the language here may need to be tweaked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it bad that the Oregon Trail Memorial Half Dollar had been "issued over the course of years?" Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.

Regarding the above two: I've tried to make this clear. What was going on was that the organization that Congress had designated was asking for some of the coins to be struck at each of the three mints with different mint marks, and there was no particular reason to do so except to increase the number of coins a collector would have to buy if he wanted the "complete set". If there's a better phrasing, I will happily adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "increasing the number of coins needed for a complete set by having them issued at different mints with different marks?" I know it's similar but I think it gets straight to the point a little better and is slightly less wordy. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk)

Preparation

This isn't talked about in the sources much. He lived on Long Island is all I see. Bowers suggests that his parentage allowed him to avoid criticisms from the CFA that an artist with a less prominent father would have gotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's Weinman's comment about the obverse in "Design". That's the biggie I think.

That's all for now.

I think that's most things anyway. I Haven't found anything on the actual origin of the committee but I have a list of the officers if it's a help. Prominent, civic-minded people, you know the drill.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Good work. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm back up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

The history section is elegant and pleasingly tactful, and the rest of the article is clear, balanced, and evidently comprehensive. I have no quibbles on the text. The best I can manage quibblewise is to suggest asking the wonder-workers at the Photography workshop to give Congressman Delaney a good going over. You'll be amazed at the difference they can make. Be that as it may, I'm happy to add my support here. Tim riley talk 17:00, 8 August 2019 (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/Long_Island_Tercentenary_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=911167425"