Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Sesquicentennial coinage/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) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC).

United States Sesquicentennial coinage

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... two coins issued for the 150th anniversary of American Independence. As usual, the coins sold badly in comparison with the numbers struck, but it's an interesting tale, though not as scandalous as some later ones.Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your work on the article and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments
 * By the March 1925 Act of Congress, by which the National Sesquicentennial Exhibition Commission was created, - Would "through the March 1925..." work better, to avoid two "by"s in the same sentence?
 * a million specially designed half dollars and 200,000 quarter eagle - Per WP:NUMERAL ("Comparable quantities"), a million should probably be 1,000,000 or 1 million (this also holds true for the body). Also, quarter eagles, not quarter eagle?
 * Perhaps a note as to who Lewis was in the lead?
 * The Commission had trouble agreeing on a design with Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock, and asked John Frederick Lewis to submit sketches. These were adapted by Sinnock, without giving credit to Lewis, whose involvement would not be generally known for forty years. ... The quarter eagle was designed by Sinnock.  - Is this to imply that Lewis' influence was only on the half eagle? Should be stated explicitly
 * I think you mean half dollar. There is some chance that Lewis submitted sketches for the quarter eagle, as related in the article.  Like most commemoratives, complete records are not available.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DATESNO, "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation". There seem to be several cases in the article where this is not applied.
 * That seems to apply to when a month day year-style date is given. I've changed one instance, but the one remaining (near the start of the second paragraph of "inception") does not seem to need one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert Grant, had indicated his (mistaken) understanding that a mark was placed on the first 1,000 coins struck to distinguish them and proposed that it be "K" for Kendrick; this was not done. - If he's suggesting a mark, doesn't that mean they hadn't been marked (or thought to be marked) yet? So I'd say "a mark was to be placed".
 * He thought this was the Mint's general practice, rather than specific to this issue and was getting an oar in as to how it should be done. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia with a population of over 2,000,000 people ... could and should have sold a greater number of coins - lack of comma after Philadelphia in the original?
 * Right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it say how many are known in circulated condition?
 * No. I could get some figures as to how many have been submitted to the grading services, but poorer-condition pieces would likely not be submitted, given this is not an expensive issue.  This is really one of the more common half dollars, with nearly 200,000 thought to be extant.  The demand doesn't really match the supply.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten everything above. If I haven't responded, I've just done it.  Expect to have new images early in the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Franklin Half 1963 D Reverse.png - source claims all rights reserved on photography, making this a copyvio (3D image)
 * File:Dime Reverse 13.png - Fine. I'd save this as JPG, but whatever. Also, note that this is a proof?
 * I don't think the proof status generally matters. Some Mint issues have slight design differences between proof and uncirculated, but I don't think this dime does.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll note it on the image page though (the proof generally has more texture, in the Mint's images). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * File:1926 Sesquicentennial quarter eagle reverse.jpg Fine.
 * File:Bicentennial 50c.png - Source doesn't include the 50 cent bicentennial. Image is really small, not like what the Mint generally has on its site.
 * File:1926 Sesquicentennial quarter eagle obverse.jpg - Fine
 * File:Sesquicentennial half dollar reverse.jpg - Fine
 * File:Sesquicentennial half dollar obverse.jpg - Fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reviews. I will probably get to these in more detail later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a new source on images via OTRS and I've appealed for replacement images for the ones you've questioned. It may take a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that regarding the Franklin half-dollar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, plus we're going to upgrade (I hope) the two coins that are the subject of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll wait on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New OTRS images are in the infobox, though the 50c bicentennial and the Franklin half-dollar still need TLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is why I shouldn't reply so quickly. All images are fine. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support, and to Godot13 for supplying the images so quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22
This is a commemorative series which I've never given much thought, so I learned a few interesting facts from the article. I've performed a few copyedits, which are, of course, fair game to keep, modify or revert at will. I also have a few comments:


 * Inception: First, how could it be that legislation was introduced on behalf of the Commission when the same legislation authorized the Commission? The current wording suggests (to me) that the Commission didn't exist until the legislation authorized its existence. Also, is it really necessary to include the short form in parentheses? I think it would be reasonable to just use "the Commission" and "Sesquicentennial" after the first use, since everyone should be able to infer from context. The latter point is just personal preference.
 * Obviously a committee to oversee planning and construction had existed for some time, as Rome and World's Fairs are not built in a day. This gave the commission federal standing, plus two members from each state, territory, etc. I don't think it as a practical matter affected who was actually running the show. There's some discussion of the two members and who should appoint them in the hearing transcript from 1925 I got through ProQuest Congressional, but it really is about whether Congress should appoint them or the governors.  Most members who spoke seemed to think that it should be the governors.
 * That's pretty interesting, actually. The article for the Exposition would be a good project if you've got the references.-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Inception: "...Treasury or the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, but he was incorrect—Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon would not support them." Do you think that a semicolon would be more appropriate in place of the dash?
 * Inception: "These would be the last gold commemorative coins until 1984, and the second and last from that series to be quarter eagles, after the Panama Pacific issue of 1915." I understand this, but I feel as though that's because I already knew it. It seems to me that non-coin people might get confused.
 * How would you feel about moving the last paragraph from 'Inception' to first paragraph of 'Distribution of aftermath'? It seems a bit out of place with the design section in between. That's just a thought.
 * Design: If you don't mind a link inside of a quote. how about linking Art Deco?

That's it for me. I would suggest perhaps moving the half dollar and dime image up a bit, but that's just a personal preference.-RHM22 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Where not responded to, I've implemented. I'm afraid the design section would look crowded with three images, when there are none elsewhere outside the infobox. Thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It all looks good to me!-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review: I have copies of some of the sources used, but I cannot access the online references as they require a subscription (I want one!). Here are a few points:
 * I would remain consistent and use the state abbreviations for all entries in the bibliography, including Chicago and New York.
 * I've generally been told that major cities like them do not require the disambiguation of state abbreviations.
 * I've heard that as well, but I personally prefer to opt for consistency in the case of references, but that is just a personal preference and I'm not aware if it's mentioned anywhere in official policy.-RHM22 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do H.J. Res. 357 and S.J. Res 187 have page numbers? I suspect not, because they never seem to whenever I've used Congressional stuff as references.
 * They are each two pages long. The second page has a number 2 at top center.  It doesn't seem worth adding.


 * The Bowers book is available online, although no page numbers are given there. The source for references 7, 10, 20, 22, 27, 28 and 29 are available here: Commemorative Coins of the United States.
 * Added. I used to use the online version, but that required a fair number of different pages, each of which was a separate source with a "Part ZZ" So I bought the book.  Adding the single URL seems a good solution.

Upon examination, everything looks good.
 * Comparing Yeoman against my own copy, everything looks fine.
 * An online copyvio check didn't turn up anything troubling.

Aside from the consistency issue, everything looks fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. It shows the need for more online access to stuff.  I am going to lose my access too whenever George Mason pulls it, though I've requested an extension, I haven't heard back.  Well, it's better than it was a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. I won't take this too far off-topic, but I've asked one of the Library coordinators, and he said that they're currently working on a partnership with ProQuest, which would be an extremely valuable resource.-RHM22 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
 * No issues noted although I wonder if Lewis is notable enough for a redlink? Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For my money's worth, he's notable enough for a red link as president of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.-RHM22 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.