Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monroe Doctrine 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 21:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... because I think it meets the criteria. The title of the article sounds like a dull historical event, but the Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar is anything but. It was part of a scheme by Hollywood in the early 1920s, when there were such scandals as the accusations against Fatty Arbuckle, to get good publicity by having a historical fair and issuing a coin for it. The expo was not noticeably successful, but as one source points out, if it was in anyway responsible for Hollywood's later success, then it and the coin were very successful indeed.Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review: All seem fine. I'm somewhat concerned about the coin images as there is no EXIF data and they are quite small, but considering the age of the upload the self tag is possibly correct (in other words, AGF). They could use proper description boxes though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bobby131313 did not always provide proper license tags, and may have deleted the EXIF data for security reasons. However, we'd be a lot worse off without his coin images, and I queried the license matter on MCQ a while back and people felt that the act of uploading was intending to have them be used.  I'll look at the image boxes, thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, nice to hear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Long quote in first para of Preparation should be blockquoted
 * Don't include quote-terminal ellipses
 * Worldcat and Google both say publisher for Slabaugh is Western, not Whitman. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the second edition? He revised it in 1975.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On the blockquote, as another blockquote follows quickly on, I think it better to keep this one in normal formatting. I have no great preference on the ellipse, but I recall a question being raised by a reviewer or delegate (I cannot recall which) when I cut off in the middle of a sentence in a quote without one.  Perhaps reviewers on this article could give me their views on that.  Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An ellipse placed at the end of a sentence is signalling that "this is incomplete". Presumably you have used all of the source that is necessary, so that your "quote" is not incomplete. For this reason I would drop the ellipse here. (A fuller review of the article is under way) Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – a few exceedingly minor comments.
 * Info-box
 * "Conjoined heads of former presidents" – If "conjoined" in this context is a recognised numismatic term for parallel profiles, then fair enough, but if it isn't I'm bound to say it conjures up visions of what we used to call Siamese twins.
 * Yes, it is the proper term. See here for an example.


 * Background
 * "British Foreign Minister George Canning" – as "Foreign Minister" isn't a job title (Canning's title was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs – to which you very properly link) I don't think it should be capitalised: "foreign minister" seems more suitable here.
 * "Monroe's Secretary of State" – oughtn't "Secretary of State" to be blue linked?
 * Inception
 * "the bill was enacted on January 24, 1923" – was the majority large or small? You might like to add it, if you think it of interest. Merely a thought.
 * It is not mentioned. These things generally passed by unanimous consent or voice vote.  They were not considered worth the floor time of a recorded vote, I suspect.


 * "the reason ocean currents were shown were" – "the reason ocean currents were shown was", surely?
 * Distribution and collecting
 * "fifty cents, though fairgoers could purchase a coin for $1" – excuse an Englishman's ignorance, but I'd have thought that "fifty cents" would go with "a dollar" or alternatively "50c" with "$1". But what do I know?
 * Enough to give a seminar, given the sheer number of coin articles you and Brian have reviewed.

It continues to astonish me how Wehwalt manages to make articles on numismatics so fascinating, not to say entertaining; I laughed aloud at the Swiatek and Breen quotation. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and is a worthy addition to Wikipedia's authoritative coverage of coinage. – Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Layout
 * On the particular question of block-quotes, I confess I tend to scatter them round liberally when I'm editing articles: I think it breaks up great slabs of text. But this is a concise article, and I take Wehwalt's point about having too many in succession here. I have no views on the ellipses.
 * Thanks on that, and for the review. If I haven't commented, I've made changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And the answer is: cherry picking. There are commemorative issues in which nothing of note happened, and collectors were not outraged.  I avoid those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Scandalous dereliction! Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support : A few points, only the first of which is really significant:
 * It should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead that the centennial in question is that of the Monroe Doctrine. Otherwise, many readers will wonder what is the relevance of the Monroe and Adams portraits.
 * From my knowledge of general ignorance, I advice that the first mention of Latin America be linked.
 * I take it that there were no consequences from Beck's accusation of design plagiarism?
 * Apparently not, other than in the historical view of later coin books. He was the first choice to do the Oregon Trail piece, three years later.  Fortunately he was too busy, as the Frasers' design is masterful.

Short and entertaining; I expect to have no problem adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both for the kind words and for the review. I've implemented the suggestions you've made.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Duly upgraded Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I've been spending some time at sea reading a book about the token coinage of 1787-1816, in which your revered ancestor played a significant part and shall work on his article a bit on my return.
 * Yes, ol' Matt spread himself about a bit. As to "ancestor", I'd like to think I was descended from the genius, but I think my late dad only claimed a family connection. I don't know what evidence he had. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose review from Crisco 1492
 * Addressed comments moved to talk


 * Support: Another solid numismatics article from Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I guess this one's ready to roll.  Three supports, source and image reviews done, all that good stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as GA reviewer. HueSatLum 18:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I appreciated your counsel.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.