Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial 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) 23:18, 23 January 2016.

Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was actually sold successfully. The design may not have been all that was desired, but it's still nice and there's a nice little backstory about the towns of Lexington and Concord, such rivals that they apparently had to have different congressmen. I enjoyed researching this one, it's been a long time since high school history ...Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments
Support - Only two comments, both nitpicks.
 * Gage secretly ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith on April 18, 1775 to go with 700 men to Concord and destroy the munitions there. - The order was issued on April 18, or the expedition was ordered for April 18? Or both?
 * He had alluded, in his report, to the well-known Ralph Waldo Emerson poem "Concord Hymn", with the phrase "embattled farmers", a reference which Arkansas's Otis Wingo used as an excuse to deliver a lengthy speech on tariffs, accusing the Republican majority of harming the farmer. - A few too many commas — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Both dealt with. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood ... " I had to learn it though I doubt kids do today (in my mind I hear it being chanted by a classroom of children.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0390).jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know this was published before 1923 when the date range goes to 1924? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've swapped it for a user one. Thank you for the review.==Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * What's the latest scholarship on Margaret Gage spying on her husband? That's a pretty major claim and should be cited independently from any numismatics books.
 * The most recent major source a hasty search is Fischer's Paul Revere Ride (1995), which is cited in the Gage article. A book review I saw of it on JSTOR (2947060) mentioned that Mrs. Gage "may have been" an American spy. I've added it as a source. Seems to be no documentary evidence. His ANB article avoids the question entirely, I'm sure intentionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's supporting a pretty general statement, but why should the History Channel be considered highly RS?
 * I don't see why not. They're reputable enough, and it's just a general statement of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * When did Dawes and Revere arrive?
 * The events of Paul Revere's ride are a bit complex, and also I'm trying not to distract the reader with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Gotta agree with Vermeule, not a great design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding one with a Milhist angle. (And thanks for all the other FAs as well, we sorely need them at TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – Meets all the FA criteria in my view. As usual in this series, the article is a model of its kind, and will, I have no doubt whatever, further enhance Wikipedia's status as a go-to source for numismatists. –  Tim riley  talk    14:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: with a few minor quibbles and observations:
 * Background


 * "Gage secretly ordered..." I don't know, but surely such military orders would never be the subject of public announcement, so do we need "secretly"?
 * Legislation


 * "Robert Luce, also of that state, introduced an identical copy" – "identical resolution" would be clearer.
 * "were not jointly held" → "were not held jointly"?
 * "A maximum of 300,000 coins were requested" – maximum is singular, ergo "were" → "was"
 * "After the two congressmen appeared..." – I think they did more than just "appear"; maybe "testfied" or "had spoken"?
 * Just a thought: the requested $10,000 seems to have become $15,000 without explanation.
 * Preparation


 * "the committee from Lexington and the one from Concord each..." – a mite clumsy; why not "the committees from Lexington and Concord each..."
 * the commission had just had its monthly meeting, but that a quorum could be assembled to approve the coin" – not altogether clear. I imagine it means that a special meeting could be held to approve the coin; perhaps tweak for clarity?
 * ("Morgan had recently died..." - plus ça change...)
 * Design


 * "It was sounded again at 5:30 am" – we could do with a date here, or earlier in the paragraph.
 * Production etc


 * "An exceptional specimen sold at auction in 2014 for $11,880". What was its exceptional quality that priced it at more than ten times the higher end of the general price range?

The usual solid job. I echo Tim's views on this remarkable series, now more than 50 strong by my count. And the redlink informs me that we are by no means finished yet. Keep going. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources review
 * All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.