Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McKinley Birthplace Memorial 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) 07:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

McKinley Birthplace Memorial dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... another commemorative for which there were high expectations, but it sold badly. It did make McKinley the first person to appear on two different U.S. coins, for whatever that's worth. They're worth a pretty penny today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments
I've reviewed this version. It looks good: well-written, comprehensive, etc. Two qualifications: first, I couldn't do source spot-checking as next to nothing is accessible for me (this fact, of course, makes the Wikipedia article particularly valuable); second, I'm as far from an expert in this subject matter as imaginable. Some very minor comments:
 * "With the aid of his close adviser Mark Hanna" - this other-FA drop made me chuckle ;)
 * "Ashbrook was willing, and the two men saw Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Acting Director of the Mint Frederic Dewey, who saw no problem." - the double "saw" is a bit ugly - perhaps change the first to visited/met/similar?
 * "A hearing was held before Ashbrook's committee" - what was the committee? The preceding paragraph suggests he was no more than an ordinary congressman with no link to the matter other than that he was from McKinley's state; now it seems he was the responsible committee chair (or perhaps member)?
 * "Originally, the bill authorized 100,000 silver dollars" - a bill can't authorize anything until it becomes an Act, but maybe that is the pedantic lawyer in me speaking.
 * In Ashbrook's quote there is a double period after $100,000
 * "with the gold bullion necessary to be acquired in the open market" - to me, this would read better with "necessary" before "gold bullion" but your mileage may vary.
 * "Q. David Bowers, in his volume on commemorative coins..." - I took five shots at reading this sentence and can't quite figure it out.
 * "inaccurate and incompetently done" - did Swiatek and Breen give any examples of the inaccuracies? [I have to say, to the naked eye, there seem to be a couple that stand out].
 * They displayed a photograph. But then, Monticello looks much larger on the nickel than it really is.


 * What's the purpose of footnote 1?
 * ... what footnote 1?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference number 1, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked this one, . It is to source the infobox.  I have had the concern that the data in the infobox is not sourced in the article, so this is to take care of that.  There's no really good way of doing this; it's either put the fn after the name or put it after every statistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Distribution and collecting" section is a peculiar location for the McKinley portrait - I gather that it can't come earlier because of competing images?
 * I've rearranged them some but the bottom line is due to the infobox, compromises had to be made. I know have them at least close to where they should in a perfect world be.
 * I've implemented your other suggestions. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the most useful comments and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "President McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, who had anarchist leanings, in September 1901, and was succeeded by Vice President Theodore Roosevelt.": I commend you for avoiding "by anarchist Leon Czolgosz" and "by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz", both of which are common in journalese but indecipherable. But I still think this sentence tries to do too much ... and how far do we need to journey into this guy's mind to root out his intentions, in a coin article? Does omitting "who had anarchist leanings," work for you?
 * I've cut it.


 * I reduced the all-caps per WP:ALLCAPS, and added "in all capitals" at first occurrence for the sticklers, though I don't think it's strictly necessary; anyone who has a coin in their pocket can see for themselves, and it's the kind of thing copyeditors are derided for fretting over. I'm generally on board with MOS's advice these days ... and we're usually stuck with it at FAC whether it's good advice or not, so if this is a problem, let's talk about pros and cons and what it would take to get the guideline changed.
 * I really think small caps are the most effective and understandable way of conveying legends on coins. People have seen coins and that they are generally (mind, I said generally) in capital letters.
 * Okay, I need a day to think about what's likely to work or not work at WT:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt regarding the use of 'small caps'. I have used them in the my articles, and I find them to be the most effective at conveying what is actually written on the coins. Not everyone knows how U.S. coins are designed, so it's probably unclear to most whether or not capital lettering is used. If instead of " MCKINLEY DOLLAR ", we say ""McKinley Dollar" (in capital lettering)", then how did we decide to capitalize "Dollar"? Coin inscriptions aren't mentioned in that section of the MOS, and in my opinion, that exemption should probably be codified.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask over at WP:MOSCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "AU-50": How about ", showing traces of wear,", and linking it to AU-50? And similarly for the other grades ... for instance, MS-66 could be "in a higher grade", or with more specific language if you like, linked to something that explains MS-66. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added slightly-worn for the AU-50 and already had near-pristine for MS-66. Do you feel more is needed?
 * That's good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. No one over at WP:MOSCAPS has recoiled in horror yet to the suggestion, and I don't personally have a position which way you should go on the caps. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Everything looks good to me. I performed a light copyedit to correct some minor MOS issues, but the article looks just fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by the Doctor

 * Mint Chief Engraver -is the capitalisation intentional here?
 * Yes. I generally capitalize "Mint" to mean the Mint an institution, following the practice of most numismatic writers.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "He attended law school" -do we know where?
 * We do, Albany Law School. It seemed needless to go into that much detail in what is meant to be a thumbnail sketch.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "n which he advocated "sound money", that is, the gold standard unless modified by international agreement. This contrasted to "free silver", pushed by Bryan in his campaign.[3]" -seems a bit of a mouthful here, is it possible to rephrase and trim?
 * I am afraid we have to go into detail here to set up why they changed it from a silver dollar to a gold dollar. And I've become pedantic about how to represent McKinley's stand on this issue. I don't see much of a way around this.


 * House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures -no article?
 * I've piped to List of defunct United States congressional committees. It leaves the reader little the wiser though.  I poked around and we have nothing better to link it too. If I ever see anything that discusses this committee's history in more than passing detail, I'll put together a stub.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Asked a question from New York Congressman James W. Husted as to whether a gold dollar would be too small to be a souvenir, Butler responded, "No; I do not think so. I think, on the other hand, a silver dollar might be too large. I think we can dispose of gold dollars very much easier. Mr. Husted, and you know gold dollars are rather scarce just now." -not sure you really need to quote here, I'd have partly paraphrased it.
 * My thought is that anyone who penetrates this far into the article is at least somewhat interested in numismatic history. So they will be interested in what was actually said.  Add to that that this is not from a numismatic book, but from my own checking of congressional databases that people likely do not have access unless they have an academic connection, and I'd argue for keeping it.  Same goes for the below, with additional comments as warranted.


 * Again with "On being told that the dies, per the legislation, would be at the Association's expense, Harding replied, "I did not notice that. Then, it essentially costs the Government nothing whatever to render this mark of tribute and assistance."
 * Per above, with the additional note that Harding is only really there because he went on to become president. What a president does or says is naturally a source of likely interest from the reader.


 * Link "dies" in the first instance and delink in "The act also required that the dies by destroyed".
 * Done.


 * ""When Barber and Morgan collaborated—one doing the obverse and the other doing the reverse of the coin—the results were almost always oppressive. The McKinley Memorial dollars of 1916 and 1917 bear witness to these stylistic judgments, the unclothed bust on the obverse looking tastelessly Roman and the classical, colonnaded Memorial Building placed across a reverse further constricted by too much, too large lettering" -another long quote best paraphrased in part IMO.
 * I've cut it a bit, but I'd rather let the expert speak for himself rather than using a different form of words.


 * " "the Committee in charge apparently realized that the number of collectors in the country could not and would not absorb an issue of 100,000 coins at $3.00 each" and some 10,000 coins "were disposed of at a greatly reduced price to the 'Texas Dealer' [that is, himself] who in turn distributed them extensively among collectors of the country at a reduced price"" -and again.
 * In this case, we have the only prime actor in this drama who is known to have spoken about his role in it. I think the reader should hear what he has to say, not my characterization of it.


 * " A 1916 in MS-67 condition sold at auction in 2008 for $9,775" -do we know the auction house?
 * I've found a more expensive one and modified accordingly, naming the auction house.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * Sources: Bowers, Q. David (1992). Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia. Wolfeboro, NH: Bowers and Merena Galleries, Inc. and Mehl, B. Max (1937). The Commemorative Coinage of the United States. Fort Worth, TX: B. Max Mehl. -no isbn numbers?
 * Got those (in one case OCLC)

Looks in good shape overall but I think you'd be better off paraphrasing a few of the quotes to improve flow and readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I've shortened one of the quotes, but I think the need to give the reader the most information overrides. It's not like there's a lot of literature interpreting these events, it's all very hit and miss. Sometimes it's just best to give the reader the information, and not paraphrase or interpret it. Also, if you reviewed the sources (you commented on them), could you also label this a source review, for the benefit of the coordinator?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Nicely done, looks a worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reviews and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: Short and to the point. I have a few minor quibbles for consideration:
 * I would mention that McKinley was a president in the first, rather than the second paragraph of the lead.
 * Link brevet
 * Consider deleting final sentence of 3rd para in the "Background", which has a faintly promotional tone.
 * I'm inclined to keep it. The reader deserves an explanation of why McKinley was having coins made for him.


 * There is something not quite right about: "Ashbrook agreed, stating: that my understanding is that these dollars..." I suggest: "Ashbrook agreed, and stated: "[M]y understanding..." etc
 * "duplicative of provisions in the Coinage Act of 1873" – could this be worded more simply, e.g. "duplicated provisions in"?

Otherwise a worthy candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the support. If I haven't responded, I've implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - You asked for us to "enjoy", and I certainly did.  Cassianto Talk   17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Not that my support is needed: if there are many more people climbing on the bandwagon you'll have to fight them off with a stick. A model article, thoroughly meeting the FA criteria.  Tim riley  talk    13:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed for your review and support.Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.