Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar/archive1

Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin with P.T. Barnum on its face, which given the troubled commemorative coin market of the 1930s has led to the obvious description of buyers of this and other issues as suckers, born every minute. Given the scarcity of coin collectors these days, the "born every minute" is probably not accurate, anyway...Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil
Support on prose, sourcing and comprehensiveness. The usual standard for numismatic FACs; most informative, have made a few trivial edits. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique
Infobox
 * Thickness, but not diameter, is converted to inches
 * Well spotted, there was an error in the template. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Background
 * What is a calliope/what is its relation to a circus? The calliope article leaves it unclear.
 * There is discussion under calliope (music). I have piped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * to a group authorized by Congress — perhaps "to groups"?
 * I've recast the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Legislation
 * one of several commemorative coin bills to be considered on March 11, 1936 — What were the others?
 * There were about ten, plus a couple of medals and to bring back the three cent piece. I think we give the reader enough info.


 * authorizing legislation placed no prohibition on this — Should this be "the authorizing..."?
 * I could do "their authorizing ...". I'm not sure "the" adequately refers to several pieces of legislation. It feels like it doesn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * six coinage bills being considered one after the other — What were the others?
 * Like the above, I wonder if it's really needed. If you insist, I'll drop a footnote with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On both counts I would find a footnote interesting—not only would it help integrate the articles, but it would also further illustrate one of the recurring themes of these articles, i.e., that the 1930s saw a glut of commemorative coins that flew through Congress for several years without much pushback. But totally your call.

Preparation
 * Do sketches of the originally proposed design still exist?
 * Yes, Taxay reproduced them and they're probably in the Numismatist. However, Kreis hasn't been dead 70 years so even though the Numismatist wasn't copyrighted at the time, I don't feel we can use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might ask at the copyright desk—it seems to me as if they might be in the public domain as either a) pre-1978 works without copyright renewal, or b) works of someone for the federal government, but someone there could give you a better idea.

Design
 * Dealer B. Max Mehl, in his 1937 work on commemoratives — Any reason why this is not cited?
 * I've changed to the more direct cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Production, distribution and collecting
 * May as well cite to the auction for the exceptional specimen: link.
 * Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References
 * Are 8 and 12 the same source?
 * No, 8 is the copy of the bill, that contains information about who introduced it and when, and to what committee it was referred. The other is the published transcript of the Senate committee hearing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to changes since my comment, they’re now 8 and 13. To confirm, those are the ones you were talking about? If so, I would recommend changing the citation format somewhat so that, without having to click on the link, one is clear what documents the citations refer to.

Looks good,. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I've either done those things or have responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, . Adding my support. Three discretionary comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I glanced at this and ended up reading all of it. I particularly enjoyed the comments on the eagle! I could find nothing to criticise in the prose or comprehensiveness. Very nicely put together, and very readable. Sarastro (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Looking strong, but still need an image review. Can I take your comments as having reviewed the sources for formatting and reliability? -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Checked the images, it seems like the only problem is that File:PT Barnum 1851-crop.jpg has a broken link. No ALT text in use, it looks like the images are pertinent and well placed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed that link. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, the formatting and reliability checks out. The difference between references #8 and #13 could perhaps be made more clear if there is further information such as subtitles that could be added, but that's a small matter that shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)