Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norfolk, Virginia, Bicentennial 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) 31 March 2019 [1].

Norfolk, Virginia, Bicentennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that had to be authorized twice, due to some misunderstandings in Congress. Passed through influence, twice, and an impressively cluttered design.Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I longed to find something to object to, chiefly from umbrage at the American appropriation of the name of Norfolk, but all I can conscientiously quibble about is the big mass of info box and quote box one on top of the other. If a less costive layout can be found it will make the page look more appealing. And I'd link "dogwood", which may be a common term in the US but is not known in these parts. But as to the content, it is a good read (a nice chuckle at the administrative cock-up, elegantly outlined), well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated and, as far as this layman can tell, comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve linked as requested and moved the quote box down. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

Usual high standard, just a couple of quibbles you could address Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bill was reported back to the Senate by Alva Adams of Colorado on June 20, with a report. — second report seems redundant and repetitive

Adjusted.

It was initially hoped that the initial bill —initially... initial is clunky

Done.

two spouses— unless they were Mormons, "two" seems redundant

Changed to a married couple. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks done
Refs 7, 8 and 16 all link to a login page, so a subscription template or similar is required (as given in ref 6)

Done.

Page range formats should be consistent - compare 23, 24 & 26 with 30. I believe that the ref 30 format now carries MoS approval

Changed to match ref 30.

Subject to these minor issues, sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability, and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the review, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All images appropriately licensed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sturmvogel_66

The only nit that I can find is in this sentence: In 1736, Norfolk was granted a charter as a royal borough by George II, and in 1753 the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie presented Norfolk with a ceremonial mace, making Norfolk the only American city to have a mace from colonial times. The "in 1753" should be set off by commas at the very least although I think that it would be better placed after "mace".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it as suggested, eliminating the need for more commas. Thank you for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

"The bill was considered by the House of Representatives later the same day. Absalom W. Robertson of Virginia moved that the House pass it, stating that the bill authorized medals, but when questioned by Robert F. Rich of Pennsylvania, stated that the bill was for "silver coins"." Any information why he changed his story? Possibly a slip of the tongue, or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a little further down talk of a push by some parties to get a coin instead of a medal, but it's not clear to me if or how Absalom's change of story was a deliberate part of this push. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that it was anything but an honest mistake made in the rush to get out of town. Thanks for the the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have another look at the above on my second read-through. Still working on my first read-through. Another comment: "There was some controversy over the half dollar bearing as part of the mace the British Crown". Should this be "the half dollar bearing part of the mace of the British Crown" or maybe even "the half dollar bearing the mace of the British Crown" (it looks like the full mace)? I'm having trouble parsing "as part of the mace the British Crown". Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning second read-through:

Lead: "The legislation required that all coins be dated 1936; thus, there are five dates on the half dollar, none of which are the date of coining, 1937." / Main text: "There are five dates on the coin, none of which is the year of minting, 1937." Sorry if I may be dense, but what are the five dates? I see 1936, 1636, and I think I see 1736. Are two of these years repeated somewhere else, and those are the five? I think it would be good if the specific five dates could be made clearer (again, apologies if it is clearly stated but I just missed it). Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three in the intermediate ring on the obverse, one on the outer ring at the bottom, and one on the reverse to either side of the mace.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see now. Well, those are all my comments and I'm happy to support. The article is very interesting. Note to coordinators: I also did several small copy edits as part of my review. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you for the review and comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2019 (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) 06:25, 31 March 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.