Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Bicentennial coinage/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 not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].

United States Bicentennial coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Bicentennial coins may still be seen in circulation, mostly the quarter (although you might be tossed one if you are handed a half dollar at a casino). There is, as there often is, an interesting backstory of the Mint yielding to Congressional pressure for coins. Perhaps a little more modern than my usual coin stuff, and includes a shoutout to the subject of my last FA (he signed the bill to authorize the coins). Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do extensive spotchecks, but one quote in particular caught my eye: in the article, "The theory in striking them was was to have enough available so as many Americans as possible would have an opportunity to have a coinage commemoration of the Bicentennial year. They're momentoes."; in the source, "The theory in striking them was to have enough available so as many Americans as possible would have a chance to obtain a coinage commemoration of the Bicentennial year. They're mementos". Does your version of the source differ from mine, or is this a transcription issue?

Typo on my part; I try to be careful. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check for small inconsistencies in formatting like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll go through it right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. Read this and found it meets the criteria - I think I have a few quibbles, but am calling it a night and will add them tomorrow. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption The Eisenhower dollar, given the double date 1776–1976, given seems an odd word choice. Is this standard numismatic wording? Or could it be just "with" or perhaps "showing" instead of "given"?
Every other place in the article uses "half dollar" but here A nationwide competition resulted in designs of a Colonial drummer for the quarter, Independence Hall for the half and the Liberty Bell superimposed against the moon for the dollar.

"half" or "halves" is accepted shorthand for "half dollar[s]". As there is only one, though, I will expand it to "half dollar'.

Thanks - I just searched for "halves" and there are two uses of that (each without a following "dollar"). Again, if this is standard numismatic terminology, I am OK with it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to expand them. It's not like the half dollar is the sole subject of the article, and thus we're crying out for synonyms. I can work around it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a zero before the decimal point? Brooks deprecated the Hatfield proposal, stating that the coin would have to be .667 pure or less to avoid hoarding.[6]

No, fineness is represented without a 0.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need a comma? (shown as [,]) Brooks testified again and[,] responding to criticism that only the two least popular denominations were to be changed, indicated her support for a Bicentennial quarter as well.
Should this be split into two sentences? On June 13, a bill, S. 1141 which provided for a circulating Bicentennial quarter, half dollar and dollar, gave permission for coins to be struck at West Point and allowed for 40% silver clad versions of the new coins for collectors was reported favorably by the Senate Banking Committee.

I don't see that that would help. This is actually a very simple sentence, it just takes some time to tell.

Your call ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fragment is stuck on here? Not all entries were for the quarter? Entries were to bear the legend "QUARTER DOLLAR", Treasury Secretary Shultz, advised by a panel of judges, would decide which design would be used for which denomination.

The sentence seems accurate to me. All the designs were submitted saying "QUARTER DOLLAR". On the successful designs which became the half dollar and dollar, the lettering was altered, but if you look at the designs as released to the public at the semifinal stage, you see the designs for the half and dollar, but saying "QUARTER DOLLAR".

~~OK, would it help to explictly say that legend was changed afterwards on the winning designs for the half dollar and dollar? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Would it help to add the year of the painting (presumably about 1876?) here According to numismatic historian Walter Breen, "both obviously derive from Archibald Willard's painting Spirit of '76", painted in YEAR.[10]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support, I will make the changes over the next day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, thanks for an interesting read, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the additional suggested change, thanks for the review and glad you liked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, thanks for the check.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious; WP:IMGSIZE says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". What is the good reason for forcing 200px to the images? My76Strat (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that's directed at Sven? I do not know. I am generally content to let the image people do whatever they want, within reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was asking Sven as he made the change. I am not criticizing mind you, but asking what is the good reason, so I may also know. My76Strat (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on his talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, you're right, however in this case I did it because it was a column of five images with no break in between them. In cases like that, I tend to shrink them down a bit so that they don't cramp out the text for people with smaller screens. It's purely a courtesy for all those poor souls still using 800x600 screens. This way, the column takes up a quarter of the page rather than roughly 3/8ths, and that's actually a major difference visually. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that. I thought perhaps it was a way to accentuate the detail in the image. I understand your rational, and thank you for sharing that insight. My76Strat (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

A comma would be nice in the lead after Mary Brooks.
Competition: Should the comma after "Entries were to bear the legend 'QUARTER DOLLAR'" be a semi-colon or period instead?
Preparation: Last sentence of the section's first paragraph has a double period.
Production: Period needed after "Mint officials returned to Congress to seek amending legislation"?
Note 7: "It was made legal for US citizens to own gold by Act dated August 14, 1974". Missing either the act name or something before "Act". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll deal with these shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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