Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilgrim Tercentenary 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 [1].

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... I think the title speaks for itself. It's a coin, issued for the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' landing. It did start a trend of ripping off coin collectors by being issued in multiple years, so that's not exactly in its favor. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

Usual impeccable stuff, although I'll never get used to "harbor", Just a couple of thoughts

I'd suggest linking to Definitions of Puritanism#Separatist groups instead of Definitions of Puritanism
men signed the Mayflower Compact, whereby all agreed to submit themselves to the will of the majority, and one of the foundation documents of American democracy.— I don't think that quite makes sense as written, although it's clear what you intend, perhaps split off the importance of the doc as a separate sentence
Plymouth (today Plymouth, Massachusetts). It think the point of this is clearer if you skip the pipe Plymouth Colony (today Plymouth, Massachusetts)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the support and the review. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HalfGig

@Jimfbleak: I'll never get used to "harbour", "colour", etc. HAHA

I just reviewed User:Casliber's Yellow-faced honeyeater FAC and this looks like the same high quality.

Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; in fact the score is 0.0% !!! mostly offline sources
Source check impeccable quality and consistently formatted. My only question is in the two Congressional Record refs is "page" spelled out and in the rest it's "p." Why is that?

It's as generated by the template. I could, I suppose, do it manually but I imagine the templates are there to be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find no issues with the writing
Image check

1) The two photos in the infobox could use better formatting/info

Not sure what you are looking for. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could add the "Information" template so they have full info like date, author, source, etc? HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) On the Landing-Bacon photo, the link goes to a photo of modern boston

This?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but go to that file, click on the source\photographer link, and the photo that comes up is in no way the source for that painting. HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut that image and re-arranged them. The one illustrated on the Plymouth museum site has somewhat different colors and I think we can make do without this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) Bradford and Springfield photos....I can't recall the law on statue photos, I posted a question here: [2]; the answer was pre-1923 is fine.

4) no issues with other photos

HalfGig talk 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Very nice article. HalfGig talk 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I caught one typo, but I just fixed it myself. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

Infobox

It might be more clear to say, "(This side of the coins struck in 1920 does not include the date.)"

Lede

"Some aspects of the design were criticized by James Earle Fraser," – I'd flip this to active voice and add a descriptive adjective for Fraser, thus: "Sculptor James Earle Fraser criticized some aspects of the design,"

Background

Link guilds' in the second paragraph?

Maybe "who spoke limited English" instead of "who spoke at least some English".

I'd recast the fourth paragraph by flipping two passive-voice constructions and making a few other tweaks, as follows: "In 1920, the government did not sell commemorative coins—Congress, in authorizing legislation, usually designated a specific organization to buy them at face value and to vend them to the public at a premium. In the case of the Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar, the enabling legislation did not name an organization, but it was the Pilgrim Tercentenary Commission; profits from the coin were to go towards financing the observances in honor of the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' arrival."

If Congress did not designate a vendor, who did?

Good question. Although most bills designated an approved purchaser, for several years from 1918 to 1922, commemorative coin bills copied from each other, basically, and did not state who was to buy them from the mint. I haven't been able to trace specifically what event caused this to change. I've revised this a bit and added another source.

Legislation

"Missouri's William L. Nelson moved that the committee approve the amended bill, and this was carried" – Maybe "this carried"? Is "was" really needed?

"Smoot, however, stated if the bills had not been reached by" – This phrase uses "reached" in a way unfamiliar to me. Is it a legal term? Are some words missing?

Reached is the word Smoot used. I've changed it to "considered".

"Smoot's attempt to bring up an anti-dumping trade bill" – Link to Dumping (pricing policy)?

Preparation

"referred the designs to sculptor member James Earle Fraser" – Perhaps "sculptor James Earle Fraser, a CFA member"?

"sculptor member" seems to be terminology used by the CFA to designate the member representing sculptors, and I'm reluctant to alter it.-Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Finetooth (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Design

I'd suggest tinkering with the layout to place The Puritan by Augustus Saint-Gaudens on the right so that Bradford looks into the page instead of away from it.

Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught all of what you suggested, though I in a couple of cases used my own words. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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