Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar/archive1

York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
 * File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OTRS has added permissions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil
Know York quite well and spent a few days there during my honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)

Quibbles:
 * The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"
 * The "for public sale" was to exclude the 15 assay pieces, which were either tested to destruction, melted or sold to the 1937 assay commissioners. Tweaked.


 * what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"
 * Done, more or less.


 * oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?
 * I changed the other "oldest" instead.


 * Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...
 * I like the existing language, which I've used in other articles, better.


 *  The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered
 * Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"
 * Tweaked somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * an explosion of ?
 * Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * more non deal breaking comments shortly Ceoil  (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. I've made the changes per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

HF
Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "In 1636, York County was formed, the first and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States" - Is it worth briefly noting that Maine itself technically didn't exist at that time, as it was part of Massachusetts until the early 19th century?
 * I'm not sure that's necessary here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Do we know why Taber objected?
 * No. Working directly from Congressional Record there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "The original coin holder in which up to five York County half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $50 to $125, and if accompanied by original insert up to $150, depending on condition" - Source is almost ten years old, recommend adding as as of date here.
 * Did that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work here; I couldn't find much to nitpick. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, source reliability, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Moise
Hi Wehwalt, I'll review this. Here are some comments:
 * Lead: "the remainder was sold": I would say "were sold" because coins is plural, but if you disagree this is no dealbreaker for me.
 * Changed to "were sold".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Background and inception: Does "senior among them" mean "first among them". If so, could I propose "several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, first among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, initially struck in 1926"? (I assume "senior among them" doesn't mean "most importantly among them" as that would sound subjective.)
 * It means that the Oregon Trail was first struck in 1926, the other coins referred to came along later (1934 and 1935). It's a simple way of saying it I've used in other articles, other ways seem messier.---Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "The York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar was one of several early commemoratives issued despite its local significance": I initially was confused what "despite its local significance" refers to, but I see it is explained a bit farther down. I think it would be clearer to reword this as "despite its lack of national significance". Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Design: "The obverse depicts Brown's Garrison, located next to the Saco River... The reverse depicts the York County seal." This seems to repeat details mentioned just a bit above in the Preparation section. I'm not sure what the best solution would be if you feel the details are needed in both sections. One idea would be in the Design section drop the detail of Saco River (I don't believe it's actually shown on the coin?) and say something like "On the obverse four sentries are seen in front of Brown's Garrison, with one of them mounted,[29] making the York County half dollar the third U.S. coin, after the Lafayette dollar (dated 1900) and the Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar (1925), to depict a horse." In this way the repeated detail about Brown's Garrison is mentioned less directly and unobtrusively than "depicts Brown's Garrison". Likewise maybe the detail about the York County seal on the reverse could be slipped in less directly.
 * Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Release, distributing, and collecting: "Senator White, in a March 15, 1937 letter to Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross, stated that the committee had erred, thinking only 25,000 pieces were authorized": Presumably it was the committee that thought only 25,000 pieces were authorized, but grammatically in the current structure of the sentence it may not be clear whether it was White or the committee that thought this. Also (if one assumes it's clear that it was the committee that thought this), did White know/presume that the reason the committee had only struck 25,000 pieces was because they believed that was all that was authorized, or did his letter only state that the committee had erred, and he found out the reason afterwards? The current structure of the sentence makes the timeline a bit fuzzy, and the reader may wonder.
 * The letter from Senator White seems inconsistent with the letter to O'Reilly. I can't explain it and commemorative coins are ill-studied, this one in particular. The source presents the letter but does not comment on.it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are all of my comments for now. I'll likely give another quick read-through when you've addressed these. It's a very interesting article; I especially enjoyed the controversy about a commemoration of non-national importance getting a coin, and enjoyed the quotation from William F. Sheehan. Moisejp (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started my second read-through early since I have time now and you've already addressed some of the points.
 * 1. "The commemorative was approved largely due to the connections that many of the coin's sponsors had, including numismatist Walter P. Nichols, who was at the time the Treasurer of the Committee for Commemoration of the Founding of York County"; 2. "By 1936, thanks to enabling legislations put forth by accommodating Congressmen, it was possible—or nearly so—to get a coin struck to observe a town picnic... Although there was no paper trail showing payoffs from local promoters, the fix was in and hardly anyone cared": Are these two ideas (which are far apart from each other in the text) related, and would it be worthwhile to acknowledge (or, as the case may be, clearly refute) a possible relation or similarity of the ideas, for any readers who may wonder about any link. Moisejp (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this in dealing with the matter below.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you decide to do something with my idea above, there might be an opportunity at the same time to link "The national response to and interest in York County’s 300th anniversary could generously be described as, 'Huh?'" " with what is said about this in the Background and inception section. But I understand the nuance is slightly different here: Rick Sear seems to be saying among other things that nobody cared nationally about in particular the bribing for the York County proceedings because York County was so local and far away. Moisejp (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was an implication of bribery, just of influence. I've put the quotations together, but it may be overkill.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed these issues. Many thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good, and I'm happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review
References
 * #9: Is there no volume/issue number? Is 29 the page you're citing to, or is it a one-page article?
 * I've added the volume/issue number and it's one page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the volume/issue number. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. Obviously I goofed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #12: It's in the public domain, so should be available online somewhere.
 * #13: Ditto.
 * #16: Ditto.
 * #18: Ditto.
 * #19: Ditto.
 * #20: Ditto. Also, why is Congressional Record italicized here, but not elsewhere?
 * 12 through 20 all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #21: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
 * Added. One page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #33: Could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
 * (you mean 22). Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I see that one ProQuest source uses the "via=ProQuest" parameter, but the others say "via Congressional ProQuest" in the publisher parameter. I would change these all so that they use the "via" parameter (either "via=ProQuest" or "via=Congressional ProQuest"). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #27: Coinsite should be the name of the source, not in the name of the page title.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #28: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
 * Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * #30: Volume/issue? Page range, or one-page article?
 * Added. One page article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources
 * Bullowa 1938: Needs ", NY" for consistency.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sheehan 1975: Volume/issue?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Slabaugh 1975: Whitman Publishing could take a link.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * May 29, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, could take a "– via ProQuest" signifier.
 * March 11, 1936 source: Ditto and ditto.
 * May 21, 1936 source: It's in the public domain, is it available for free anywhere? Also, is this the same thing as footnote 13, above? And should the United States Government Publishing Office be mentioned?
 * It doesn't say that. I did searches on each of these and did not see these documents available.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, what's the difference between these three sources and the Congressional Record sources in "References"?
 * The Congressional Record is the transcript of the debates of Congress. These three sources are transcripts of committee hearings, or reports of committees on bills, and are less widely available.


 * Vermeule 1971: Harvard University Press could take a link.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeoman 2020: Any reason there's an LLC at the end of Whitman Publishing here, but not for Slabaugh 1975?
 * I know Whitman has changed hands over time, no doubt it's related to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. I'll work on these probably this weekend. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Congressional Record cites have been italicized and also linked to PD sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Usernameunique? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * &, two minor comments above. Signed off once they're addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All done now, . Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd move "via Congressional ProQuest" from the "publisher=" parameter to the "via=" parameter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's done too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm signed off on sources. Meant to indicate that with the "Signed off once they're addressed" comment. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Usernameunique, as a coordinator it is always tricky for me to know if a nominator saying that something is addressed is the same as a reviewer feeling that they have been satisfactorily addressed, and I feel that I always need to err on the side of caution. Thanks for the clarification, I thought that was what you would say. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720
Consider me a non-expert


 * "authorized by Congress that" Might want to add that this is the American Congress.
 * Done in the lede. I think it can be skipped in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was at what is now the city of Saco in 1631, where the fortification known as Brown's Garrison was built." This sentence has a lot of "what is known as" statements. Maybe, "The first European settlement in what is today the state of Maine was a fortification called Brown's Garrison. It was built in 1631 at the current location of the city of Saco." Or something similar, just to break up the language a little bit.
 * Tweaked a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time." Do you mean this is the first time Congress issued commemorative coins, or that it was the first time 15 were issued at the same time?
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again, dated 1936, senior among them the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, first struck in 1926." Too many commas are breaking up the flow. Perhaps, "At the request of the groups authorized to purchase them, several coins minted in prior years were produced again and dated 1936, including the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar which was first struck in 1926." (I removed "senior among them" because I don't know what that means in this context.)
 * Clarified and cleaned up, hopefully.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikilink "Director of the Mint" to "Director of the United States Mint"?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikilink "Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures" to "United States House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures"?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "while the dies were reduced" should this be "dyes"?
 * No. Helpful pipe inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "and provoked much favorable comment." from who?
 * Nichols did not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "thought the obverse design "splendid"." -> "thought the obverse design was "splendid"."
 * It's weird how the sale of the first 100 coins is presented at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps flip the order so that it is chronological.
 * Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed. I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)