Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar/archive1

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) 3 January 2020 [1].

New Rochelle 250th Anniversary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another commemorative, of a somewhat small town and a fatte calf ...Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude K. Lathrop designed the coin; she was chosen after work by Lorrilard Wise —why is one red-linked (twice) and not the other?

I thought Lathrop was more clearly notable, she did design two commemorative coins. I would be surprised if there are any other people who designed two commemorative coins of the classic (pre 1954) era who lack an article. I've added a redlink in lede for Wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fattened calf—in the lead, but fatted calf subsequently

Fixed.

Huguenots— link needed

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who hailed from —A bit informal, makes them sound like rappers instead of people fleeing religious persecution in their homeland, which you might briefly mention

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proof condition—link to proof coinage

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

polished planchets,—needs a link, I think. I didn't recognise the word, since coins are struck from "blanks" here

Done. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

The fatte calfe rocks :) just a couple of points/suggestions.

Perhaps an explanatory footnote explaining low-mintage issues? As a non-numismatic reader, I have no idea what this means. It's a shame we dn't have an article on the phenomena.

It's really just supply and demand, and I've explained it that way. There were then many coin collectors, and an issue of 5,000 pieces would be taken up more easily (and increase in value faster than, say, one of 100,000.

Umm, I'm not wholly convinced as to the relevance of the Cincinnati coin, but I'll defer to consensus on that one.

It's the non-existent anniversary part.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest breaking up y mid-1936, Congress had reacted to these practices...to have a complete set, perhaps recasting from "Adding protections into a new sentence".

Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1936 was certainly a busy year; we are told (re. my above point) that Congress moved against dodgy practices "by mid-1936}}. In the preceding paragraph, we are told that—also in 1936—Congress itself authorised an "explosion" in issuements, and that two other coins were reissued. Are we to understand that these all happened in (approximately) the first six months of the year (prior to mid-1936)?

Yes, the last coin bills for the year were enacted on June 26. The last day of the congressional session was June 20. I'll play with it a bit. Really, all the abusive ones happened in the first quarter. I've reviewed the source, Flynn says the first one with protections was the Long Island Tercentenary half dollar, enacted April 13. (and the Cincinnati issue seems to be the last without, March 31 btw) But remember the design and minting state spread these out over the remainder of 1936 and into 1937, as in the New Rochelle issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such protections were in the New Rochelle half dollar bill -->"The New Rochelle half dollar bill maintained these protections", perhaps, or something similar.

Recast a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...the moving force behind the New Rochelle coin was the Westchester County Coin Club, including coin collectors Julius Guttag. That's a lot of coin; suggest losing that third one—in the context of the sentence, I think it's clear what kind of collector Guttag was.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

planned the issue to avoid the abuses of earlier commemorative coins, perhaps "planned the issue to avoid the abuses that befell earlier commemorations", again, the earlier commemorations have been established by now.
I know this is about a coin, I just wonder if the word needs to be used >100 times :)
Back anon Wehwalt, many thanks for this! ——SN 54129 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "coin" cut back by roughly a third, keeping in mind that some of the remainder are in quotes or proper names. Changed "commemorative coins" to "commemoratives".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything outstanding from your perspective, SN? Not an exhortation to declare support, just checking everything's been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read it, Ian Rose and it's only got better since I was last here. To be honest—and I'm always slightly uncomfortable complimenting experienced FACers, as it could sound completely patronizing—but after I mentioned the number of coin mentions, it occurred to me that maybe I was being unreasonable. After all, it is about a coin, and Wehwalt has been around block a few times on the topic and no mistake :) but, yes, if I can say, I think it's much tighter now, and with no loss of meaning. This is a nice series. ——SN 54129 23:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sort of thing I would never have thought of, but will look out for in future articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I greatly enjoyed this article, which is a v. good read, evidently comprehensive, relevantly illustrated, and carefully sourced. I laughed aloud at the "less fortunate" provider of the roast beef. The only small drafting point I can manage to find is "William Rodman Pell 2d" right at the end. Is "2d" a regular form for "Jr."? I have seen "II" but not "2d", which looks a bit odd to my eye (and of course to an elderly British eye it conjures up tuppence in old money). Be that as it may, the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am glad to add my support. – Tim riley talk 15:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just rendered how it appeared in the newspaper re the second. Yes, at least in the past, I would associate that sort of affectation with money. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere

They are now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although where there are measures with conversions, could the footnote(s) simply be placed after both numbers rather than repeated? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fn11 uses a proxied link which is useless to anyone not at that particular institution, and there's not sufficient information in the citation to figure out what kind of source is being cited without access to that database. FN17 has more detail but is also proxied, and why does this one have a subscription-needed tag when 11 does not?

I've removed the proxy, put explanatory parentheticals and made things consistent on the subscription.

Er, looks like the proxy's still there? It's not just the ID you removed but also the prefix. Also for 13 is there a publisher that is not the database? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re publisher, it's a ProQuest congressional page, no other publisher. Can you specifically tell me what needs to be removed? This usually gets done by a bot I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially what happens is that a proxied link appends an institutional proxy to the initial part of the link, and sometimes also creates an alteration in format - for example li-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu unproxied would be li.proquest.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated

Got that I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FN50 has its italicization misplaced

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Duffield piece is uncredited, where are you getting that credit from?

It is the editor's column and he was the editor. It just doesn't have his name on that page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the Flynn book a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a numismatic expert who has written quite a bit on coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything, I think. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appropriately licensed.
My only quibble would be rotating the coin pictures so their figures are vertically aligned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's been adjusted, thanks to the good people at the Graphics Lab.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

The period before the parenthetical CFA in the lead should be moved to after the abbreviation.
Preparation: It probably wouldn't hurt to link Wise in the body, since Lathrop already has red links in both the lead and body.
Minor point, but if you're shortening page numbers in multi-page refs throughout, ref 44 would probably be 203–04. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ergo Sum

No issues stand out to me. An interesting read. Ergo Sum 20:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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