Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stone Mountain 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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC).

Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because…I think it meets the criteria. The Stone Mountain Memorial half dollars is one of the stranger stories of commemorative half dollars, involving an eccentric sculptor, a drive to remember the Confederacy, and the KKK. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Back of Stone Mountain Park 2009.jpg - File page needs cleanup. Upload was the day after the image was taken (going on EXIF info, which is thankfully present) so I think we can assume copyright is okay despite the low resolution
 * File:Borglum design for Stone Mountain.png - Do you have a better year for sketch's creation?
 * Not an exact year, the sources don't indicate.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Stone Mountain medal.png - Needs categories
 * File:Stone Mountain models.jpg - Needs categories
 * File:Borglum at White House 1924.jpg - Needs categories. A crop would likely be nice
 * File:StoneMountain.jpg - Looks fine
 * File:Stone Mountain coin card.jpg - What didn't have a copyright notice, the book or the card? If the latter, you'd have to see both sides (I think) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the card is blank on the other side. I've seen them.  I don't have a photograph of the back, which I recall to be blank.  But then, none of the images of these online or in Swiatek's books have the back illustrated or even mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, we can AGF here (that was my assumption as well, though I suggest that, if you come across one, you acquire a photograph of the back just to be safe) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Like most of this memorabilia, it is surprisingly pricey but I will see what I can do. The others are done.  Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, no need to buy one for this image review. I think we can AGF here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not own a Bernard Baruch holder, but I can attest that the reverse is blank. Ideally, we'd have a photograph of a Baruch card with the coin still attached (the coin was contained in a small plastic pouch, stapled to the card; you can see the staples holes in the image we have now). I know that Liberty Numismatics has made a scan of one such card available, but it's markedly lower resolution than the image we're using now, and I'm not sure whether it's still public domain (since it's no longer "purely" a printed item). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it had a coin, it would be three dimensional and we couldn't use it. I am starting to learn that there is much that goes into coin photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Prose comments moved to talk page.
 * Support on prose and images. Good job, Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments. Reference formatting isn't my preferred style, but seems mostly consistent. I poked around in the literature for overlooked sources, but can't find anything significant, so I think it's safe to declare it comprehensive as well.
 * I'm not sure that the parenthetical is needed on the Slabaugh source versus just listing the publisher as it was at publication (Western), but I'm not sure it's hurting anything.
 * The source reviewer keeps bringing up that some online source says published by Western. I'm just trying to make my life easier by heading the next such off at the pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also not an actionable issue, but if you could get access to a physical copy of Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia, that big block of mostly identical web-cited references could be replaced with a tidy book ref (and the citations made to page number). Unfortunately, I don't have one handy, so I'm of no help there.
 * I've ordered one used through Amazon. Prices have come down considerably, it was much more expensive when I checked a few months ago.  I'm not going to switch them here, but the next time I start a commemorative coin article I will use it.  That being said, there is some value to having web-based references for the reader to check up on me more easily.  I'll work out some happy medium.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My only real prose concerns were mentioned previously, but I guess I'd like to echo them. I don't think Helen Plane needs "Mrs." when everyone else just gets referred to by bare last name. There's no male Plane in the article to confuse her with. I might also replace the "huge rock outcropping" with a more technical description of Stone Mountain; perhaps call it a "large quartz monzonite dome"?
 * Perhaps a bit too technical? I'm open for suggestions here. I will un-Mrs her.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Any value in finding and adding an image of one of the counterstamped coins?
 * I don't own one and don't have a free-use image. Getting properly licensed coin images has been a big problem all along.  There are some out there on the web and I will look into getting permission.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent read and very interesting. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: See my detailed comments at the peer review. Nothing more to add, the usual succinct job. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources review
 * All sources fine. One micropoint: I would drop the words "in fact" from the note. Brianboulton (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you on both. I am learning to discard such phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.