Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cincinnati Musical Center 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015.

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example.Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to support this based on a overall prose quality, but I am wondering about the citation to a letter which can be found in a box at a certain library. This is harmless original research, but it still is literally original research. Is a copy of this letter available? Shii (tock) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is illustrated in the article. It was part of the research for my journal article, "The Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" (The Numismatist, October 2013, pp. 42–49) but I did not wind up using it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt Sorry for not replying. I was on the fence, but I will support because the citation remains verifiable. Shii (tock) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Theodore_thomas.jpg needs US PD tag and author's date of death
 * Switched tag to PD-US. The book it's taken from was published in Camden, NJ in 1919.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Melish_OTMA_letter.jpg: when/where was this first published?
 * I doubt it's been, so I've switched to PD-ineligible. A simple rejection letter surely doesn't have copyright protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * File:1936_Cincinnati_PDS_(SET).jpg: USGov tag should be removed - covered more specifically by currency tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has a currency tag already.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
A few minor points.
 * "but quickly recovered and they are valuable today": perhaps "the coins are valuable today", since the antecedent for "they" is really the value, not the coins.
 * "Among the pieces, which had recently been struck, and which had appreciated in value, was the 1935 Old Spanish Trail half dollar": I'd eliminate the first comma, and in fact all three could go.
 * "This piece was issued at the behest of L. W. Hoffecker": I think "had been issued" would fit better.
 * "as Melish related Lawrie put it": a little awkward; how about "as (in Melish's account) Lawrie put it"?
 * Melish was defiant, so presumably the CFA's approval was only advisory, and Melish could do as he wished? It doesn't appear that Moore changed his mind.  Can you clarify?
 * The first paragraph of the section says that the CFA advised the government on coinage design. I've tossed a little more in.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Where I haven't replied specifically I've followed your advice, or made a similar edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Everything looks good to me! I corrected a few small MOS issues, but it seems fine otherwise. This is a fine article on the subject of one of the most infamous, but interesting, early U.S. commemorative coins.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review The sources used are all appropriate, as is the level of citation in the article. The only tiny inconsistency I can see is that, in the bibliography, you abbreviate states with postal abbreviations, but use the traditional "D.C." for Washington. Otherwise, all good. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.