Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Bicentennial coinage/archive2


 * 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 19:14, 17 March 2012.

United States Bicentennial coinage

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This nom failed through lack of reviews several months ago, I'm bringing it back for another shot.Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why give page number in footnote for Webster 1986 and Reiter 1981 but not for Bardes 1974 or Reiter 1979?
 * FN 36: shouldn't italicize AP. Also, why use that type of date formatting here? Complete dates aren't given for other news or magazine sources
 * How are you ordering "Other sources"?
 * File:1976_Bicentennial_Quarter_Rev.png could use a better description
 * File:1976HalfReverse.jpg: suggest using the coin-specific tag instead
 * File:Scott1479.jpg: what does "Scott 1479" refer to? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will look though these. On Scott 1479, that is that stamp's Scott catalogue number.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alarbus corrected the page number matters when he saw your note, for which I thank him. The other things are done.  The Other Sources are now by author, with the anonymous works by first significant letter of publication name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support by Ruhrfisch - I supported last go round and still feel this meets the FA criteria. I also note that the images all passed review by last time, and have not been changed since (and it appears that they are all PD anyway). Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reviews each time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support – Wehwalt's authoritative series on US coins is always impressive, and this article continues the high standard. Two quibbles: "momentos" is in a quote, so I didn't like to alter it, but I hope it's a typo. And "The total coinage by striking mint are shown below" seems to me to want a singular, not a plural, verb. Other than that I have nothing but praise. The article meets all the FA criteria, IMO. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo. I just checked the source.  I've changed the other bit.  Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I think this is the first time I've read one of your coin article beginning to end, and I was not disappointed. Well written, comprehensive etc. I made a few copyedits, hopefully I didn't introduce any errors. I have a few minor comments on prose:
 * "a bill seeking a coin honoring Abigail Adams and Susan B. Anthony." Just checking, it sounds like the bill proposed a coin honoring both--it wasn't seeking one for each, right?
 * Correct. It was to be on the contributions of American women.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The judging was originally supposed to take place at West Point; with the delay, it took place instead at the Philadelphia Mint." Do you know why it was changed?
 * Doesn't say. Could have been any number of reasons.  Schedule, unavailabiity of West Point now that they were installing coin presses, Philadelphia's easier to get to (especially at a time when unnecessary travel was a little bit frowned upon), or the fact that the Philadelphia Mint is within a couple of blocks of TV studios and they wanted to do publicity.  I expect to pay a return visit to the ANA library, possibly this spring or summer, they may have stuff offline I didn't see on my first visit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess if it doesn't say, it doesn't say. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "From the entries, the judges selected twelve semifinalists; the sculptor submitting each received a prize of $750." I'd suggest something like "...twelve semifinalists, each of whom received a prize of $750."
 * I'll play with this one a bit. Technically the semifinalists were designs, not people.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw a couple WP:PLUSING constructions ("with the dates appearing" & "each also with ceremonies marking the issuance" maybe try to rephrase if there is a good way to.
 * I'm not sure if the two "due to" and the one "because of" are being used correctly, but I can never keep them straight. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either. The rules keep shifting and I prefer to do what feels naturally and let reviewers call me on it.  Thanks for the review and the support, I will make those changes shortly.  I'm glad you liked the article.  I think very few read them from beginning to end, they just want some fact or other, and I try to keep the lede and infobox stuffed with the facts I think they'll want.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good strategy. Fixes look good. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


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