Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama–Pacific commemorative coins/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) 10:28, 31 May 2015 [1].

Panama–Pacific commemorative coins

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... five coins that were issued for the Panama-Pacific Exposition, a very successful World's Fair-type event in San Francisco. They were not popular at the time but are rather expensive today. And the $50 pieces are very handsome. I wish I owned one.Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I sometimes think Wehwalt must be in league with the Devil: how else can he write such readable articles about so dry a topic as coins, for Heaven's sake? This one is well up to standard: clear, balanced, well sourced, beautifully illustrated and in top notch prose. – Tim riley talk 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Old Nick has not as yet requested conom credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

One circular link in the template involving a hyphen rather than an endash (I think). No DABs and external links OK.
Images appropriately licensed.
~~submitting designs, which are similar to the actual coins Shouldn't this be "were"?~~
Since the US was not yet engaged in WWI in 1915, I'm not sure why Swiatek and Breen thought it ironic. But that's on them, not on you.
Shouldn't Art historian Cornelius Vermeule deemed the obverse of the half dollar "a halfway point between the designs on French silver pieces early in the new century and A. A. Weinman's 'Walking Liberty' for the half dollar". be in the section on the half dollar rather than the quarter eagle?
~~I fear that Swiatek and Breen misidentified Athena's armor; it's scale mail, not plate mail~~.

I'll just say mail, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need ISBN or OCLC # for Bowers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done except where commented. Thank you for the review & support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_Panama-Pacific_International_Exposition,_San_Francisco,_aeroplane_view,_1915.jpg: bit confused about this - the image description says PD but the licensing tag is CC? PD seems more likely, as copyright would probably be expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of that. Thank you for going through it in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following nitpicks:

Background: "In 1904, San Francisco merchant Rueben Hale proposed an exposition in his home city for 1915, both to commemorate the opening of the Panama Canal and to mark the 400th anniversary of Vasco Núñez de Balboa becoming the first European known to view the Pacific Ocean from the Americas..." As other cities were clearly in the running to host the exposition, would it be more accurate to say that Hale proposed that his city host the exposition, rather than implying that he originated the whole idea?

From what I can tell, New Orleans tried to poach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the fourth paragraph of the Background section is misplaced? The successful outcome of the exposition is not really part of the background to the issue of the coins.

It's the least awkward place to put it. I generally have such a paragraph late in the article, but I think it necessary to discuss the PPIE early.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The words "as they are today" are probably best removed, and left to inference, to avoid question about what "today" means.

I've modified it to avoid the word "today", but I feel the reader may not be familiar with the pramtice, so have to lead him along part of the way.

Legislation: what happened to H.R. 16902?

According to what I can tell from Congressional ProQuest, it never came out of committee. They were probably using both sides of the Capitol to see who would pass the bill first. But I don't find the legislative history finder in there reliable enough that I can draw any conclusions for the article. That being said, the Congressional ProQuest has been a great help in this kind of article, and I will miss it when my access ends at the end of summer.

Design: Link Union shield
Production and distribution: "There, hubs would be made that the Mint could use to produce coinage dies, as they could do it faster than could the Mint." Slightly hard to follow, without a clearer definition of "they". Perhaps "the company" rather than "they"
I'm a bit puzzled by this sentence: "Such an outcry could have caused the Mint to re-issue the coin, this time with the mint mark" – isn't that what happened?

The usual slightly dodgy goings on, told with the usual brio. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on how my teachers taught me to right, many moons ago in New Jersey, but thanks. My deep gratitude for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes except where noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taught you to right??! Maybe one lesson too few. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my commentary on the New Jersey Edyukation Systum was a bit understated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Ref 7: The publisher of this page is The California Historical Society, not "ppie100.org" which is merely the web address.
Refs 15, 17, 18: I would add "US Government Publishing Office" as publisher

It's an automatically generated template. I think the link is sufficient and that it is not inconsistent with other refs.

Ref 19 format appears incomplete. Presumably US Congress is the publisher? Or LegisLink?

I've fixed that now.

In the list of sources, the states are included in the locations, except in the cases of Chicago and New York. Is this usual?

That's how I've been doing it. I am starting to reconsider as states have gotten added to a couple of existing FAs, but for now I'll let it stand.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that very much. Except where noted, I've taken care of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2015 (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) 10:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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