Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vermont Sesquicentennial 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2017.

Vermont Sesquicentennial half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a half dollar with a rather complicated history, both in Congress and in the preparation. There were repeated battles in Congress over this coin, not so much because of its subject, but over the idea of issuing commemorative coins at all, and things then got hairy in the Commission of Fine Arts ... well, it's a nice coin, even if the catamount on the back's a little hard to explain ... enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

 * "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon sent a letter in opposition and three Treasury officials to testify against it in committee, arguing that the public was being confused as special coin issues entered circulation." The grammar around "to testify it" seems unclear to me. More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've played with it a bit, does it help?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's clearer. Thanks, Wehwalt. I'll continue the review soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Swiatek and Breen noted, "it is a testimony to something or other in Vermont that there was never the faintest breath of suspicion at any time about anything connected with the distribution of the coins." " I wasn't sure if I missed some context here. Is there an implication that there were shady or unscrupulous actions taken related to the distribution of the coins? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read Finetooth's comments below when I added this. I see now that Finetooth mentions the same issue. Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of context to make it clear that this was praise for their ethics.

Support. It all looks good. I enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad of that. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth
 * This is an interesting and entertaining account of the only coin I've ever heard of that honors a catamount. I have a few questions and suggestions, nothing big, and I made a dozen small copyedits as I went along. Please revert any you think are unhelpful.


 * Lede
 * "declaring itself independent in 1777" – Perhaps add that it was declaring itself independent of Great Britain? Actually, it's not quite clear in the Background section that this means only Great Britain. Was Vermont declaring independence from New York and Connecticut at the same time?
 * Everyone, basically. They were not a part of the Continental Congress.  I will add the word fully.
 * Legislation
 * "Greene had not always been a friend to commemorative coins, asking..." – Perhaps substitute "saying" rather than "asking" since what he says is not a question but rather a statement about a question.
 * "Mellon felt the public was being confused..." – Insert "that" so that it reads "Mellon felt that the public was being confused..."?
 * "The Treasury had sent three officials, Mint Director Robert J. Grant, Assistant Director Mary M. O'Reilly and Garrard B. Winston, the assistant to the Undersecretary of the Treasury." – Perhaps add "to the hearings" to make clear where they were sent?
 * "warning that there were six coinage bills before Congress, and the Mint had struck nine commemoratives..." – Maybe add "that"; i.e. "warning that there were six coinage bills before Congress and that the Mint had struck nine commemoratives..."
 * "She answered a number of questions..." – Delete "a number of" since any more than none would be a number?
 * "Vestal issued a report the same day, stating the committee..." – "stating that the committee"?
 * "Leach's attitude was typical as to whether commemorative coins should be stopped..." – Recast slightly for better flow? Maybe "Leach's attitude toward approving more commemorative coins was typical...".
 * "The House voted, and the amendment was added." – I'm finding it hard to keep the complications straight. I think it might help to say "amendment to approve the California coin" here.
 * "But Representative Johnson was there, and to applause from his colleagues moved a further amendment..." - Tighten to "But Representative Johnson, to applause from his colleagues, moved a further amendment..." since he had to have been there to move an amendment?
 * "and Vancouver, Wash." – I'm not sure that all readers will realize that by "Fort Vancouver" and "Vancouver, Wash." Johnson is referring to the same thing and not a coin for a fort and now a coin for a city.


 * Preparation
 * "that would make a coin one could take satisfaction in..." – Maybe "that would make a coin one could admire"?
 * "The Vermont commission objected, and the matter was compromised by the name being added." – Perhaps "The Vermont commission objected but agreed to the compromise of adding Ira Allan's name." The phrase "the matter was compromised" suggest a different meaning of "compromise" than the one I believe you intend.


 * ''Production, distribution, and collecting"
 * "there was never the faintest breath of suspicion at any time about anything connected with the distribution of the coins..." - This might be a bit too subtle. What could Swiatek and Breen be thinking of? Was the method of distribution unusual?


 * Images
 * The images need alt text. I'm not sure if it can be added to the coin images in the infobox, but the two in the main text could have it.
 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I've done those things where I haven't commented, though sometimes in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. I'm happy to switch to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The very minor issues I picked up have already been listed by Finetooth, and I don't see any reason to delay support while those are addressed. As a Brit, I wasn't familiar with catamount, the only similar word I know being "catamite", a somewhat less subject for a coin than a cougar... Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support from Jim
 * Thank you for the review and support. I shall not even essay a joke on the catamite matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source review from


 * Earwig's tool shows a no sign of copyright violation.
 * Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Image review from

It seems like every image is germane to its location. ALT text OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Vermont battle bennington sesquicentennial half dollar commemorative obverse.jpg: The license of the coin design seems OK to me. However, if the coin isn't flat we might have to add a license for the photography, as non-flat surface features can add some opportunity for photographer creativity and thus for photographer copyright. And if the coin is flat, the current license template should be wrapped in a commons:Template:PD-Art
 * File:Vermont battle bennington sesquicentennial half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg: Same as above.
 * File:UVM IraAllenMonument 20150803.jpg: Sound licenses.
 * File:Keck Vermont 1927 medal reverse.jpg: Assuming that there wasn't another earlier publication with a copyright notice, sound licenses.
 * Thank you for the review. to ping the coordinators that the articles has three supports rather than the two mentioned by the script.  Not saying that's sufficient, just to let them know there's an error somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.