Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/B. Max Mehl/archive1

B. Max Mehl

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the most prominent coin dealers in history, who built himself up from nothing in a dusty part of Texas, far from the coin collecting centers, and whose ads were familiar to many in magazines having nothing to do with numismatics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I think this is the first time I've seen an article I started nominated at FAC by someone else; good to see it here! Not much resemblance to the tiny stub I created. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.
 * I understand why you use "vended" in the lead, but it sounds unnatural. Could we reconstruct that sentence to describe those collectors as "among his customers" or something like that, and avoid having to use a verb of selling?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Russia in the late 19th century wasn't on the Gregorian calendar. Is Mehl's birthdate in western or Russian dating?
 * This is true, but none of the sources differentiates or gives an alternative birth date in Julian. All we have is the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but since the reader might assume one or other dating system, how about a footnote saying that the sources don't specify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I see you're using a referencing system that links "Weiner" in the footnotes to the right line of the source, but since there are two sources by Weiner I'd suggest adding the date to the shortened name in the footnotes -- I typically scroll to the sources rather than click and it was a second before I realized I had the option.
 * Weiner's work in the Encyclopedia of Texas is not dated. I'm open to suggestions.


 * Perhaps add "adding" before '... "the fires"'?
 * I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married. She was the niece of Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen, in whose parlor the wedding occurred." Suggest "On August 18, 1907, Mehl and Ethel Rosen married, in the parlor of Ethel's uncle, Northside Fort Worth developer Sam Rosen."
 * "an increase from 10 in 1912" interrupts the sentence it's in now. Since the end of the previous sentence talks about 1912 as well, could this factoid be moved up there?  If the sources don't connect it directly to the timing of his return, perhaps "by the end of 1912" would work.
 * I've put it in parentheses. I'm really just trying to show that his business prospered after his return, and putting the two figures together does that better.


 * I think "1916—1920" should be an en dash but that looks like an em dash. Conversely the subsequent "1916– and 1917-dated" should both be hyphens; the first one looks longer than a hyphen on my screen.
 * I think I've fixed that.


 * Heath's description of The Star Coin Book is a lot more charitable than Breen's, in the quote box, which calls it "worthless". If Breen is worth quoting on the topic, shouldn't his opinion also be reflected in the body of the article?  And I'm not clear why he thinks it's worthless.
 * I've just looked at my copy of Breen and according to the subject index, it is the only time he refers to it. Leaving aside his personal failings, Breen had colorful opinions that are often worth quoting, but he was not always coherent in explaining his views. I felt it was worth including to show that not everyone was a big Mehl fan, but I feel that putting a condensed version in the main text would be a bit repetitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The paragraph beginning "According to Tom LaMarre" is about Mehl's image; I think it could do with a topic sentence to start it. Perhaps pull the P.T. Barnum comment up to this para to illustrate an initial topic sentence?  Then I think a bit of connective tissue, for flow, is needed between a couple of the other sentences -- e.g. perhaps follow Horning's comment about self-promotion with Guren's comment, connecting them with "... and Guren agreed, saying..."  Without something like this it's a bit "A said B".
 * That's done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's all for a first pass; this is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support. Everything above is either fixed or can be left as is, given your comments. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

 * Link numismatist.
 * It would be helpful if numismatic could be defined in the lead.
 * Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "The applications were subject to no objection being lodged against the prospective member". "member" → 'members'.
 * Done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "In October 1903, that journal reported a change of address to Box 24, Alvord, Texas." How is this relevant to the article? (Unless you are talking about Mehl, in which case could you say so?)
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "who sent many rare pieces to Mehl on consignment". What does "on consignment" mean?
 * Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "the more thorough The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia, which by 1924 had an annual circulation of 70,000 copies". "The Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia" sounds like a book, but it having a circulation makes it sound like a periodical. Which was it?
 * Good question. Avoided by changing "circulation" to "sale".


 * "in whose parlor the wedding occurred". Perhaps "occurred" → 'took place'?
 * Made moot, I think, by my edit in response to Mike's comments above.


 * "and personal matters had obliged him to remain." "had" → 'then'.
 * Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "of which $200 had been spent on a single insertion of an advertisement in The American Boy." I am not sure that this adds much/anything to the article.
 * It's an indication of Mehl's willingness to spend increasingly large sums on ads in non-numismatic publications and bridges from the $12.50 spent in Collier's to the large sums detailed later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * $200 out of $5,000 does not seem an "increasingly large sum". How is a reader supposed to know that The American Boy is a non-numismatic publication. The explanation you just gave seems to convey what you wish better. Maybe 'including $200 on a single advertisement in a non-numismatic magazine, demonstrating his willingness to spend increasingly large sums outside the usual trade publications' or something similar?
 * Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "The United States Post Office Department found this to be deceptive". And so ...?
 * It doesn't say. It's cited to Bowers' personal recollections of conversations with Mehl in the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the direct link to " and Mehl switched campaigns" which I feel needs explaining. Why did the US PO finding the ad deceptive cause Mehl to switch campaigns? If this is not known, or is unclear, the two facts would be better given in separate sentences.
 * I don't think it's terribly unclear. The post office would not allow deceptive advertisements to pass through the mails. But the source doesn't fully set that out. So I've split the sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "$500,000 in resources". In this context, what are "resources"? (Stock?)
 * It's not clear. I find an ad from Mehl in The Numismatist, June 1938, p. 536, which is footed, "B. MAX MEHL Mehl Building, Fort Worth, Texas Capital, $250,000. 00. Resources, $500, 000. 00. Largest Numismatic Establishment in the U. S.
 * Why is an advertisement[!] in which a businessman trumpets their own financial standing a high quality and/or reliable source?
 * I'm not saying that it is, merely using it to confirm what a reliable source (Bowers) says.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you are unclear as to what "resources" means in this context?
 * It appears to be what the business can draw upon if necessary, but that's more or less just going by the dictionary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bleh. That's kinda what I assumed, but I struggled to find it in any dictionary. I had hoped it was an Americanism and that you could explain it to me. Hey ho, you have ascribed it directly to Mehl, so I suppose that it is harmless.


 * "even as stocks sank". Link stocks.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "to get the Bureau of the Mint to agree to strike low-mintage varieties". What is "low-mintage"?
 * Clarified I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * " Conducting them by mail bid, Mehl had 116 auction sales between 1903 to 1955". Suggest reversing the order of these clauses.
 * Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Link Rotary Club, Exchange Club, Chamber of Commerce, Country Club, Temple Beth-El. The last possibly as a red link.
 * The last is a disambiguation page. I'd rather not do a constructed red link such as Temple Beth-El (Fort Worth, Texas)


 * "His last auction took place on October 25, 1955, one of only three to follow the Kern collection in 1950". To my eye this would read better in chronological order.
 * OK.


 * Is his cause of death known?
 * The heart condition is mentioned. I looked into whether Tarrant County death certificates were readily available but it's an offline process.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 18: "p." → 'pp.'.
 * This may have gotten fixed somewhere along the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

An impressive piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Up to date I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking good. Just three points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Moise
This looks really interesting. I'm looking forward to reviewing it, will start my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've read through and made a handful of mini-mini-edits, but besides that I saw nothing I felt needed changing. I enjoyed this article very much, great work on it. Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review – pass
All images are well captioned and are on Wikicommons in public domain or otherwise. My only small concern is the source of the Collier's image links to a Google Books page where I at least was not able to see the image. Possibly what displays or is accessible is regional or there could be other factors. If you can think of a better way to describe or link this source, great, or if you're convinced the current way is the best way, I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I am not sure how to improve the Google books link, I clicked it and was very close to the ad, and with the page number supplied it was no problem to find again. I did look for copies of Collier's with higher resolution that contained a Mehl ad and came up empty.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm satisfied. Moisejp (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891
Interested
 * suggest repeating note A at his date of birth in the body
 * Russian Empire is linked in the lede but not the body, suggest standardizing
 * Q. David Bowers, in an article on Mehl," perhaps date the article?
 * Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Any idea why Cowell would have done this?
 * The source doesn't say. I did a search of The Numismatist archives for relevant info and although Mehl advertises his connection with Cowell in some ads, nothing I see gets into the why of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "The February 1904 advertisement offered The Hub Coin Book for sale for $.25, although in an unfortunate misspelling, the "k" in Book was rendered as a "b"." In the ad or in the edition of the book itself?
 * I'm unfamiliar with what distinguishes the "popular press" from other press-- could you maybe link?
 * "Mehl offered the Numismatic Monthly as a replacement journal" who did he offer?
 * "Mehl had remained concerned " was he concerned before? I don't recall mention earlier in the article though my taking a break in between reading may have contributed to forgetting
 * What is a "bas-relief" could you link?
 * Suggest some inflation calculations -- i.e. "spending $200 on a single insertion" wouldn't sound that much to a contemporary reader.
 * The above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What would be the " busier part of the year" for numismatics?
 * The source says "the busier six months of the year". I would hazard a guess that the fall and winter would be the busier time.


 * Suggest noting when the great depression began and referring to it at first mention as "Great Depression" which is probably how the vast majority of readers know it.
 * Done, more or less, though stating when the general time period is.


 * "brought in 9,800 book orders during the first week" how can an ad be determined to bring in orders?
 * Such things are often tracked by including a code as part of the address to track such things, a non-existent department that responders would include as part of the address. The source doesn't say though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just some suggestions, nothing major Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I'm happy to support, mainly on prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
No quibbles from me. I thought I had spotted a typo – "Centinel" – and then chuckled as the penny dropped, so to speak. I looked twice at "brought" rather than "took" in the second para of the lead, but I suppose it works all right. This article strikes me as balanced, well sourced, of appropriate length and detail, and sensibly illustrated. Happy to support.  Tim riley  talk   16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – pass
Starting source review...
 * It seems both Bowers, Q. David (October–December 1983) and Bowers, Q. David (July–August 1999) currently link to https://archive.org/details/rarecoinreviewno0130bowe. By the way, for each Internet Archive link (in this case for the 1999 link) would it make sense to link directly to the page, for example https://archive.org/details/rarecoinreviewno0130bowe/page/64/mode/2up? Moisejp (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed all those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've now completed my review. All references are well-formatted and the p's and pp's are good; also all the links from References to Sources work fine; and all the sources seem reliable. It all looks fine to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)