Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elgin, Illinois, Centennial 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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC).

Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Crisco and others, I think, have asked for a commemorative coin article where things didn't go terribly wrong, and where no one ran off with the money. On this one, things went more or less as they should have, and the money was properly applied. The only problems were, the subject of the commemorative was terribly obscure and it took a while to get the memorial built. Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Image review from Cirt

 * Image review: File:Elgin (Illinois) Centennial half dollar obverse.jpg = Image on Wikimedia Commons with WP:OTRS confirmation, checks out okay. File:Elgin (Illinois) Centennial half dollar reverse.jpg = Image on Wikimedia Commons, licensed as public domain, checks out. File:RovelstadPioneerFamily.jpg = Image on Wikimedia Commons, licensed as GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0, checks out okay. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt (addressed)
(having stumbled here from my FAC)


 * Addressed comments from Cirt moved to talk page, by Cirt. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm comfortable with supporting after the responses to my comments, above. High quality article. Deserves the star. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the support, and for the additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, and my pleasure, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: A couple of minor issues:
 * Refs 19 and 20 appear to be to the same source. One shows a page number, the other doesn't.
 * I have ref 19 being page 215 of the Bowers article, with ref 20 being pages 215 and 216. Not sure I see the issue.
 * Ah, my apologies! the latter page refs are at the top of the third column, and I missed them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "L.W. Hoffecker" source: It is not immediately clear why the name is enclosed in quotes.
 * That is the name of the article. It is an obituary.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine. I will read the article over the next day or two and provide a more general review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

General comments: Not many:
 * The reason for the commemorative issue – Elgin's centenary – should I think be given in the first, rather than the second paragraph of the lead.
 * "The latter year, a watch company was founded there, and the city became well known its timepieces;" A word missing after "known": ("known for its timepieces")
 * "Trygve Rovelstad (1903–1990) ... sought to erect a statue as a monument to the pioneer in his hometown of Elgin." Not clear who is meant by "the pioneer". It reads as though it refers to an individual, though I assume it's a generalisation for the early American pioneers. This needs to be explicit, especially for non-American readers.
 * "The sculptor managed to get a bill introduced..." No sculptor has previously been mentioned in the text, so clarification needed
 * "L.W. Hoffecker on July 11 wrote..." would be better phrased as "L.W. Hoffecker wrote on July 11..."
 * "There were a large number of commemorative coin bills in Congress in 1936..." Any particular reason for this? The year doesn't immediately ring any anniversary bells.
 * Lots of people trying to get on the bandwagon. See generally the discussion at Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar. Hatnote added.


 * "commission Chairman" – inappropriate capitalisation
 * The use of "plus" in prose, in the sense of "as well as", is usually deprecated by prose stylists, and in any event is rendered pointless by the later "extra". I'd insert a comma after "coins", and replace "plus" with "with" or "also".
 * "According to his wife, Gloria, he was offered a job at the Mint but declined." This sentence has no relation with the rest of the paragraph, and looks out of context. It doesn't seem relevant to the article's subject.
 * I think it's relevant as it shows Sinnock's view of his competence. When a statue goes unfinished for sixty-five years you have to wonder.  I'll add "by Sinnock".  Interesting to wonder if he would have become Chief Engraver instead of Gilroy Roberts, and would have designed the Kennedy half dollar ….--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Design" section: three "heads" in the first line
 * "Release" section, second paragraph: the date should be given at the start of the sentence: "On July 1, 1936, Hoffecker sent off 3,500 letters offering the new coins, which had not yet been struck", not as at present.
 * The Pioneer Family image looks unnecessarily large at 400px. Recommend a max of 300px

Expecting to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, thank you. I've made the changes not addressed above.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: on basis of above responses and a final readthrough. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough review and kind comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments (formerly Oppose). I don't wish to seem rude, but has the article been read through properly? From the first para of main text:
 * "The latter year, a watch company" (add preposition)
 * "became well known its timepieces" (add "for")
 * "notable for manufacturing of tools" (add article)
 * "and weekly publications" (not part of "manufacturing", so another noun is needed)
 * "to be distributed to churchgoers" (why not "which were distributed"?)
 * "on Sunday" (just one Sunday?)

There are only three sentences in that para, so that's a high ratio of problems. Given that criterion 1a is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", I'd expect that the great majority of simple things like those above would have been corrected prior to nomination. Based on that, I don't wish to go through the remainder of the article, but recommend that at least one person does, possibly outside the formal FAC procedure. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I will ask reviewers to look carefully at that paragraph. That being said, I'm not sure it is as dire as you suggest.  I think the preposition debatable on the first one, but have added it.  The second one, other reviewers have pointed out the need, and I've added it.  The third one for clarity I've changed "manufacturing" to "production". That brings in the weekly publication, which are "produced", and so your fourth concern is addressed later.  I don't like your proposal on the fifth one because I think my phrasing makes it a bit clearer these were not just Elgin churches.  The last one I think the existing phrasing is adequate.  I think the plural unneeded because all Sundays are included in "Sunday".  That being said, I see no harm in changing it to "Sundays", and have done so.  Would you be willing to read a little further?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concentrating on other things at the moment. In the interest of fairness, I've changed the heading from "Oppose" to "Comments", the gist of which are that the whole should be looked at carefully. I hope that it goes well. EddieHugh (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I would be grateful if you would look further as time permits.  I have cleared up those glitches you mention and think that was just an unusual rough spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On a point of clarification: I did read through the whole article before posting my points which are listed above. EddieHugh commented before Wehwalt had responded to my review. The "for" was obviously an omission; on the matter of prepositions, I am never sure of their general usage in AmEng, and I generally accept what writers such as Wehwalt do. Other EddieHugh points are more a matter of style choices, though I have to say I prefer "Sundays" to  the singular. Brianboulton (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I've got to give more read throughs before submitting to review.  That being said, I think EddieHugh would not have found the rest of the article as bad.  I gave it another careful read which caught a couple of glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments
 * "weekly publications to be distributed to churchgoers" Is there an easier way to say that? What are we talking about here? Church bulletins? Religious pamphlets?
 * "sent an acceptance" might be better as "accepted his offer" or "wrote to accept his offer".
 * That's all I have on the first read-through. Interesting article on a fairly obscure coin.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I've done those things.  Yes, it is an obscure coin, but we got the images so we needed an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! I meant not that it shouldn't have an article, but that it's impressive that you could find enough source material to make one. I'll give it another pass before supporting, but it looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was too. That's an impediment in this sort of article.  It seems Bowers has Hoffecker's records.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything else that needs attention. Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the support and the good wishes. I basically wrote the article because I got in some commemorative coin images by license, so ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Crisco 1492


 * sculptural group - does this mean "group of sculptures"?
 * I took the term directly from the source. A group of sculptures seems to be what is going on up in Elgin, yes.


 * Elgin, Illinois, located on the Fox River about 30 mi west of Chicago, was founded in 1835 by James and Hezekiah Gifford, who named it.  - this sentence could use a bit of simplification, methinks
 * Split. I like the ending.


 * (the journal of the American Numismatic Association (ANA)) - shouldn't ANA be in square brackets? (Brackets within brackets)
 * Bracketed.


 * "These should also be 10" in diameter, and this is where your trouble commences. These sculptors all want to incorporate their own ideas in the design and ask anywhere from $400.00 to $1,000.00 for their work, telling you what trouble it is to get the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts and many other things which do not exist." - is there a way to avoid having the straight quotes indicating inches here? I was initially reading this quote as ending at 20 and wanted to ask "10 what?"
 * Played with, feel free to modify.


 * Rovelstad wrote back with an acceptance in November. - is there a way to avoid this construct ("wrote back with an acceptance" sounds odd to me)
 * Tweaked.


 * How do we know the statue in File:RovelstadPioneerFamily.jpg is public domain? Sculptor died in 1990, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it was depicted on the medal, the coin, and much promotional literature without copyright.
 * For a work completed in 2001, I can't see much chance it would be PD or free to use. The engravings would have attracted a different copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's it for tonight. Rest tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose looks good (finished my read through). Waiting on discussion of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. I need more evidence to make that case.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and images. Good job, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Support with a couple of minor suggestions (not show-stoppers):
 * "The coins were to remain on sale through Hoffecker until January 1, 1937 or until they were sold, whichever came first." All sold, or sold out, maybe?
 * Sold out, then.


 * "he had completed them in plaster of Paris, needing to be bronzed before display." Something about the way this is phrased makes it seem like "needing to be bronzed" is modifying "he". I kicked it around a couple times but couldn't think of another way to say it.
 * I've played with it. Let me know what you think.

Looks mature and ready-to-go. Nice work and interesting as always. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you on all counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.