Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oregon Trail Memorial 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 GrahamColm 21:30, 24 December 2012.

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar is a beautiful coin, but an ugly story of an association given the right to have US coins struck using it to, for lack of a better word, screw the public. Encountered along the way is Ezra Meeker, who traveled the Trail in the early 1850s and lived to be almost 98. His intentions were good. Those who came later, not so much. However, at the end of the day, we are left with a handsome coin, so some good came out of things.Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments : Thanks for working on and submitting this article, Wehwalt. It's a good topic, and an interesting read. Here are my comments on the first pass:


 * Awkward snake: "Ezra Meeker, who had traveled the Trail with his family in 1852, spent the final two decades of his long life before his death in 1928 publicizing the Oregon Trail, that it should not be forgotten.


 * Another one: "After having tens of thousands of pieces struck in 1926 and 1928, and not selling them all, the Association, most years between 1933 and 1939, struck small quantities of the half dollar, in some years from all three mints.


 * "The Trail had in some places disappeared, swallowed up by town and farm, and he sought to find where he had passed, pointing out important places along the Trail in the hope that historical markers would rise. He took his oxen team and wagon to the Brooklyn Bridge, and back west where they participated in the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena."
 * The Oregon Trail is nowhere near either the Brooklyn Bridge or Pasadena, so there's some sort of disconnect for the reader here.


 * Mixture of tenses: "felt that [...] commemorate events


 * The wikilink to Stephen Foster is good, but even better would be "American songwriter Stephen Foster". Then readers don't have to click on the wikilink to figure out who this article is talking about in this sentence.


 * "On April 26, 1926, the 95-year-old Meeker appeared before the Senate’s Committee on Banking and Currency in his capacity as president of the Oregon Trail Memorial Association, Inc., a New York corporation (the Association)."
 * What's "(the Association)" doing here? It seems very clear that the New York corporation is the Oregon Trail Memorial Association. Actually, why is the aside about it being a New York association even necessary?
 * Since the sources almost uniformly point out the New York corporation angle, I felt I should too. It is not a major point and it is clearly being used by the sources to imply disconnection with the Trail area, setting up the controversy to come.  Although I can't find any sources on the Association beyond newspapers at the time and the later coverage by the coin authors, it looks like a lot of the non-Meeker personnel were from New York or the area, and Meeker seemed to like spending time in New York in the last couple of years before he died (he was very wealthy). Meeker's on my to-do list, btw, but it may have to wait until I can visit Pullayup (next summer I think). The (the Association) is so I can call it that through the rest of the article, but I see the disconnect and I've moved the parenthetical to before the NY corp angle.
 * "half dollar" is wikilinked on its second occurrence in the body of the article; it should of course properly be the first.
 * Yes, but it's frowned upon to link within the bolding at the start of the article.
 * I was actually talking about the first appearance in the body of the article ("wikilinked on its second occurrence in the body of the article)". The first appearance of 'half dollar' is in the second paragraph of Authorization: "The bill authorizing the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar was first..." I see now that although you linked half dollar on its second occurrence, it's an "Easter egg" link to Stone_Mountain_Memorial_Half_Dollar. I'm not a big fan of 'Easter eggs' because the reader doesn't know where the link is taking him/her until s/he clicks the link. The Manual of Style also frowns upon this usage. See: WP:EASTER EGG. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked on the first body appearance of "half dollar" and on the Stone Mountain pipe, included the word "commemorative" in the pipe to make it clear we are not going to the article on half dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilink "dies" on its first appearance
 * Piped to Coining (mint)
 * No ISBN for An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage. New York: Arco Publishing?
 * Arco Publishing is what it is. Never heard of them before.  Taxay was certainly a very reputable coin author, his History of the United States Mint and Coinage has been indispensable.  ISBN added.
 * I look forward to eventually supporting this nomination on an engaging subject. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Got all those I think (if I haven't said anything, it means I've done it). Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my first batch of concerns, Wehwalt. I haven't reviewed the fixes yet, and it's late, so it will have to wait for tomorrow, but the improvements look encouraging. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Made cautious by a series of unsuccessful issues, Congress turned back a number of proposals for special coins in early 1926."
 * The "turned back" here seems informal, and should probably be replaced by "rejected" because the phrase "turned back" has several meanings, including "to stop and go back", "to cause someone or something to retreat", and "to turn around", none of which make sense here.


 * "The Association sought more pieces in 1936, 10,000 were struck at Philadelphia and 5,000 at San Francisco, plus in each case six pieces for assay."
 * A semicolon is needed after "in 1936". You're connecting two independent clauses.


 * Once these few small changes are made, I believe I can support. Firsfron of Ronchester  12:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made changes as suggested. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! The reviews of your article seem to have petered out. Best of luck finding additional reviewers. I've struggled with the problem of finding reviewers on my last few FACs, so I sympathize. Firsfron of Ronchester  15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, please feel free to let me know when you have one up, or if you have one up now, which it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not quite ready yet, but when it is, I'll let you know. I'm already aware it won't receive a lot of review, as it's quite obscure, and the "peer review" it received was non-existent. Anyway, best of luck with Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments : A bit different from the usual coin article (different cast, for one thing), and a most interesting insight into the coin collecting world. I have a number of prose issues, all relatively minor; I apologise if any of these have been mentioned in the preceding review.


 * Lead


 * "ripoff" is designated as a slang term in all three of my (major) dictionaries
 * "which could be sold" → "that could be sold" is probably better. Other which/that issues occur within the article
 * "The Association..." needs to be explained on first mention; readers of the lead will not know what this is.
 * "all three mints" assumes prior knowledge
 * "Public protest followed" → "Public protests followed" ?
 * Background


 * "He took his oxen team and wagon across the nation to publicize his cause, parking his rig in front of the White House, where he met President Theodore Roosevelt, crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, and participating in the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena." Present punctuation and georgraphical vagueness makes this hard to follow. I'd split: "He took his oxen team and wagon across the nation to publicize his cause, parking his rig in front of the White House where he met President Theodore Roosevelt. In New York he crossed the Brooklyn Bridge, and in Pasadena he participated in the Tournament of Roses Parade."
 * Authorization


 * Something has gone wrong here: "Congress placed no restriction was placed on which mint should strike the coins..."
 * Preparation and design


 * "Indian" or "Native American"? Both terms are used in the section.
 * Am I understanding this correctly? John and Laura Fraser designed a side each, but Laura did the modelling for both sides. She then seems to take control of the operation; it is she who sends the designs to the Commission for Fine Arts, and it is to her that the Commissioner responds.
 * I am a little uncertain about the use of highly descriptive adjectives such as "resplendent" and "dramatically rendered", unless they have been provided from a source. Also, in view of the later interpretations of the Native American's gesture, perhaps you should say "an intended gesture of peace".
 * Initial release


 * "The difference between the face value and the sale price was to pay the cost for historical markers along the Trail, and to renovate the Whitman Mission in Washington state". Who decided this? I imagine it was "the Association", but this should be explicit.
 * "disgruntled at missing voting" - the double "...ing" clunks an bit; could be "disgruntled because he missed voting". You should also mention that it was a presidential election; we Brits are an ignorant lot.
 * Reissue


 * Just "President Hoover" rather than full name
 * "procured" is surely wrong here. "Devised", perhaps
 * Is "Scott" a short form for "the Scott Stamp and Coin Company", or is Scott an individual? It's not clear whether the company or an individual was doing the selling.
 * Final issues, termination and aftermath


 * I can't understand why the 15,000 struck in 1936 should be dubbed the Whitman Centennial issue when it seems that the bill to allow such an issue failed in Congress. Am I missing something?
 * "the issue was sold in sets" - what did these sets consist of?

That is all. Ready t support when fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources review The NYT archive sources are marked "registration required". This service requires a subscription rather than simple registration. Otherwise, all sources and citations look fine, though no spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for answering your comments as a bloc, it is easier to do this offline. Ripoff I contend no other word so clearly sums up what happened in such a limited space.  No one will be at a loss to understand what is meant.  That/which is one of my blind spots and I'd be grateful if you would point out the problematical ones or simply fix them.  I've taken a shot at it though.  Meeker had considerably more adventures than that, but I am saving them for doing his article in future: in New York, his driver was arrested for herding cattle (his oxen, apparently) on a city street, which apparently was not legal in 1907.  I am using Indian and Native American as synonyms, so as not to use the same term all the time.  I think we all know what is intended, and there is no question of prejudice as both terms are acceptable in American English (though some would prefer one to the exclusion of the other).  On the Frasers:  Yes, your understanding is correct, but the two worked as a team so I am comfortable having the infobox ascribe each side to both.  Doubltess the division of labor was to expedite things for both of them, and each had a role to play in the two-dimensional design before Laura converted them to three-dimensional models.


 * "Resplendent" is directly from the source. "Dramatically rendered" is a paraphrase, I do not have my copy of Vermeule with me so I can't tell you the original, but he was an art historian and it is certainly so from looking at the coin.  On the use of the proceeds:  the source does not say who decided it.  Logically it was the Association, since the authorization by Congress was a bit broad.


 * "Scott" designates a company, the original Scott was dead by then. Stamp collectors still refer to "Scott's catalog" which is the invaluable annual reference guide in that hobby. According to Bowers, Raymond, who had a major role in Scott's coin operation, was the motivating force in a lot of the commemorative boom of the 1930s.


 * On the Whitman Centennial issue, the bill for a separate coin failed in Congress. I can't say exactly what was behind the use of the name.  However, there was the Whitman connection to the original coins, both Whitman and Meeker settled in the present Washington State, and the Association was looking to get other groups involved.  I imagine in 1936, there was still uncertainty about whether the coins would sell out.  It also provided a useful excuse, I suppose.  I will be at the ANA library in Colorado Springs in January, perhaps back numbers of The Numismatist will turn up a better explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of very brief comments. First, "ripoff" may be the best word for instantly conveying your meaning, but that argument does not always hold good; in some circumstances an obscenity might do the job perfectly. My preference would be to stick to encyclopedic prose, but I am not pressing the point. Secondly, if "Scott" refers to a company, then surely it should be given as "Scott's", the common short form for many businesses (Woolworth's, Harrod's, Selfridge's, Macy's etc). I'll leave that to you; I have upgraded to support, since I believe the article now satisfied the criteria, even if tweaks and small-scale improvements continue. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Grateful for that. Regarding "Scott" vs. "Scott's": Bowers uses Scott here although I see Scott's used in quotations from time to time.  I personally always called it "Scott's" but I have to go by the sources.  I am taking on board your concern regarding "ripoff" but leaving it for now.  I will continue to search for a term which addresses your concern yet is as effective as the present phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review - both infobox images need licensing tag for photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are some of Bobby131313's coin images; he did not always put tags on them to indicate what license he wanted. I queried this at a noticeboard a while back, editors felt that his action in uploading them (he took them himself) conveys an intent that they be used.  Let me know if you need me to dig up the diff.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. A few minor observations, none of which affect my support:
 * Authorization
 * Third para – "half dollars, that could be sold" – I think this should be either "half dollars that could be sold" (i.e. removing the existing comma) or "half dollars, which could be sold".
 * Initial release
 * I did slightly wonder if "Meeker's exploits" was a touch informal for an encyclopaedic article, though the term is wholly justified, as who can deny! I certainly don't press this point.
 * Reissue
 * To an English reader's eye "Scott figured" (third para) reads rather slangily – I'd have written "calculated", or some such, but if "figured" is formal in US usage please ignore me.
 * "could be purchased for as low as $1.10 each by purchasing" – perhaps "bought" for the first of the two purchases
 * Final issues, termination and aftermath
 * "Some of these pieces" – I imagine this means some of the ordinary ones, not the assay ones, but it could be clearer
 * Yes, indeed.

I have nothing at all of the numismatist in me, but I found this article fascinating and you can sign me up for the Ezra Meeker fan-club. The piece is well-proportioned, balanced, clear and formidably referenced. I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim Riley (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Had it not done so, according to Swiatek and Breen, "there would probably be Oregon Trail coins dated 1980"." It's impertinent of me to say so, but I think there's a charming jest here slightly stifled by the phrasing. You might perhaps say, "Swiatek and Breen observe that if Congress had not intervened there would probably be Oregon Trail coins dated 1980".
 * Thanks for the review and the support, I'll work through these. I think "figured" and "exploits" are good enough, I tend towards the use of such terms, to try to ground the article.  The others, I agree with.  Agree on Meeker.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's done. Unless there's further information on the images needed, I see no barrier to promotion.  This has already been discussed in a prior FAC, though I'd have to research which one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.