Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 26, 2019

"Intended for the 150th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase (shown in white)," There seems to be a difficulty here as to whether "Louisiana Purchase" refers to the act of acquisition (which can have an anniversary) or the area of land thus acquired (which can be shown on a map). I believe that the term can be applied to either, but here it is being made to refer to both simultaneously, which is not good semantics.
 * I think the solution would be to alter the parenthetical. I'm open to suggestions, but they should be very brief.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having considered this some more, "Louisiana Purchase" in US-speak, designates both the event and the land. We do fudge between them a bit but not in a way that is going to confuse the reader. We did something quite similar with Gadsden Purchase half dollar a month or so ago BTW. We can either change the parenthetical or just let it stand and I think it would be OK either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that the name can apply to either: I do not believe it is good semantics to make it do both jobs simultaneously.
 * Is there a change to the parenthetical you would propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Territory of Louisiana shown in white"/"Area purchased shown in white" I wouldn't really know what synonyms for 'Louisiana Purchase' (the land area) are used.  I think the area involved was more than New France, or we might use "Colonial French Louisiana shown in white"?.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That starts to get complicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A crafty sleight of hand to move the bracketed 'shown in white' from the prose to the caption: neat sidestep of the confusion. Kevin McE (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"the coin was sought by ..." Permission to mint the coin was sought, the coin itself was not and could not have been. (Article has "coin was lobbied for", which seems fine to me). Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think it's OK as is (you can seek something nonexistent, i.e. the impossible dream) but I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Mitch Leigh would claim that he was writing in encyclopaedic tone. Is there an objection to the article's "the coin was lobbied for by..."? Kevin McE (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed more or less as you suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)