Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huguenot-Walloon 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) 11:52, 14 April 2016.

Huguenot-Walloon half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a somewhat controversial commemorative coin, in its time. Though it would probably be so today, I suppose. Also notable for the appearance of one of Congress's most spectacularly named members, Wells Goodykoontz. He should have kept at it, imagine Senator Goodykoontz, Governor Goodykoontz, dare I say President Goodykoontz? But I digress.Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: A very interesting and nicely written piece. Minor quibbles/preferences that you are free to ignore:
 * In the lead, 'a portion was returned to the Mint' can we say how many
 * The Huguenots were French Protestants, and there was often conflict with the Catholic majority. - who were often in conflict...
 * with an amendment adding the bank - ...as designators
 * Neither had any direct involvement with the voyage of the Nieuw Nederlandt, having been killed forty years or longer before it took place. Could this sentence do with out "it took place".
 * were not killed for their religion and were anti-Catholic, "the United States...": ..religion, were..., and that "the United States..."
 * with the words, HUGUENOT – WALLOON – TERCENTENARY – FOUNDING OF NEW NETHERLAND with the years 1624 and 1924  - 'with' twice, maybe and the years
 * Sourcing is impeccable. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've taken care of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Interesting article. Just a few comments:
 * the lead could benefit from an explanation of the Walloon connection, rather than just mention Belgium.
 * I found the Background section a bit light. Lots of key info of how the background connects to the coin only trickles through in later sections.
 * It does ... but that's the fault of the sources. I'm wedding the standard books on the subject of commemoratives with congressional sources that I do not know if the authors examined and probably not. Thus, there are disconnects and no one comments on them.  For example, Peter Minuit is mentioned by Stoudt as the subject of the design.  Obviously that didn't happen.  Whether that was due to some problem with the design, or whether it was "Protestant propaganda", who knows?  I'm picking and choosing facts to help the reader because no one has drawn connections or commented.


 * The first paragraph of Legislation is not about Legislation. I wonder if this fits better in its own section. The article is a little light on Huguenots in the 1920s, so more background on the forming of the commission would be good. An alternative to its own section is the background section.
 * I've added it. I'm not sure how much it would be useful to add on 1920s Huguenots, as this was a broader celebration by the Churches of Christ in America.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission was established under the auspices " when?
 * "by Pennsylvania Congressman Fred Gernerd" needs explanation of why him here, rather than 2 sentences later
 * "by Pennsylvania's David A. Reed" why him?
 * I'm going by the congressional documents, which are bare of such details. Likely because he was from Pennsylvania.


 * "Swiatek and Breen noted" a description of who they are would be good. numismatists?
 * "The Huguenot-Walloon commission" is this another commission or is it The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission?
 * Yes, but that's something of a mouthful.

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Q. David Bowers needs a description
 * Thank you for the review. I think I've either done or responded to all here.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – My only complaint is that if one blinks one misses another top-notch FAC from Wehwalt. I nearly missed this one, and am happy to add my support now.  Tim riley  talk    17:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, but given you are the first comment in 16 days, the blink must have frozen into sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * For some reason, the image in the Production section has a visible file name in the caption
 * File:NNC-1924-50C-Huguenot-Walloon_Tercentenary_half_dollar_(reverse,_uniface_die_trial).jpg needs a licensing tag for the die itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the licensing, . I don't see a caption.  Can you advise?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Screenshot. Not sure what's causing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * did that coding (and I must thank him for providing the images, that particular one inspired me to do this article). Can you see what's going on?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the coding and don't see anything wrong with it. I took a screen shot and it doesn't show the extra text. Is the text still showing up for you Nikkimaria?--Godot13 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. I looked at the code too but couldn't see what the problem was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested help at the Village Pump which hopefully was the right place. Thank you, Nikki, for your review, as always. We'll see what the technical folk think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , as we haven't been able to fix it, I've switched to the original image, showing both sides of the die trial. I may crop the image and upload it as derivative but there's no hurry.  I think this addresses all image concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Thank you for another article of high value ;)
 * In the lead, you may want to mention the destination of the ship, for those who don't know what the name implies.
 * In the caption for Stoudt, consider to repeat his part in the story. Yes, it was said before, but for us idiots who look at boxes and pics ;)

That's it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review -- Ceoil signed off on reliability, nothing leapt out re. formatting except perhaps: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "House hearings" citation might be quicker to match up to the references as "House of Representatives Committee".
 * Not sure that US Govt Printing Service needs linking when no other pubs are linked (or is it the only one with an article).
 * Wehwalt, they're not holding up promotion but could you ack these one way or t'other for future reference? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Noted. I consider the hearing transcripts like books, so list the publisher and location.  I'll look at it closely though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Italic text
 * I've added a location for the USGPO, so it is consistent with those in book form. I've changed the name of the reference per your suggestion.  Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.