Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maryland Tercentenary half dollar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 1 June 2019 [1].

Maryland Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another coin, this one with a man with dubious dress, especially his collar. This is my solo nomination article, as Gadsden Purchase half dollar should be promoted soon no doubt.Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Up to the usual standard of this series. Remarkably readable for an article on a – forgive me – dry subject like numismatics (I chuckled at the attempt to sanitise the Italian slogan), well and widely referenced and beautifully illustrated. There are two "a number of xxx"s in fairly quick succession, but otherwise I have no comment on the prose. I don't see how this article could be bettered. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 17:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Meets the FA criteria, is well written and nicely illustrated. The only point to consider (not that it sways my support) is that you have the rage ranges in the "pp. 217–18" format, while the MoS now says it should be "pp. 217–218". It's pointless nonsense and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you need to bother or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Infobox

  • Images seem somewhat small in full size, any particular reason?
That's all we have. Bobby131313 uploaded them years ago, and he's more or less inactive today. We have very few image sources on coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Intro is a little abrupt. How about "The Maryland Tercentenary Commission, formed in 19XX, desired..."
I don't see a founding date, so I've played with it some.
  • the Tercentenary celebrations — I don't think you need to capitalize "Tercentenary" here. Also, this is the second use of the word in this sentence; you could probably drop one.
Done.

Legislation

  • a Maryland Tercentenary half dollar — Same re: capitalization.
Avoided.
  • and passed without any recorded discussion ... and the bill passed without further discussion. ... and the bill passed without debate — Any of these three times, was there a vote for which any numbers were recorded?
No. That very rarely happened on commemorative coins. Mostly they went through uncontested, if they got as far as the floor of Congress.
  • The bill was brought to the House floor on March 20, and passed without any recorded discussion. The bill was transmitted to the House of Representatives — I'm a bit confused, it went from the House to the House? Based on the rest of the section, it seems as if the March 20 date is actually when it was brought to the floor of the Senate.
My goof. Good catch. Fixed.
  • That committee made report — Made a report?
rephrased.
  • this was merely pro forma — Is the lack of italics (pro forma) intentional?
Yes. I think it's passed into the English language enough that italics are not needed.
  • It became the Act of May 9, 1934, authorizing 25,000 half dollars — Is this the official title of the bill? If so, a manner of making this clear (e.g., italics, capitalization, or quotation marks) would help.
Rephrased.

Preparation

If we don't have an article on Moore, I think Caemmerer is way down the list. I don't know if it's worth it.

Design

  • their joint work on commemoratives — Perhaps "on commemorative coins".
  • Michael Kittle, in his blog for the American Numismatic Association — Does Kittle work for the Association? If so, there's probably a way of phrasing this that doesn't have to include the reference to this being a blog post.
  • the painting may show someone who is not Lord Baltimore — What is the basis for this claim? Any commentary by art historians?
Cut Kittle's entire contribution. I don't see where he's getting that from.
It's an intriguing point, too bad there isn't more.
  • The obverse shows ... The reverse side shows — Is "reverse side" correct, and/or should it be "obverse side" as well?
Both are correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the arms of Lord Baltimore quartered — What does "quartered" mean here?
  • The state motto appears — Where? On the ribbon thing under the seal?
The above two addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production and distribution

  • Between two and four pieces are known in proof condition — What accounts for the range?
Because it's not always clear if a coin is a proof coin, it may not have been submitted to the experts, if it's in a collection it won't be making news until it's sold. Up to 4 is the figure for many of the commemoratives of the 1930s. That sort of uncertainty. Many Mint records were destroyed in the 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One such specimen sold at auction for $109,250 in 2012. — May as well include the auction as a source. Also, might be worth asking Stack's Bowers if they would issue the images under a free license.
At one time I did write to them and other auction houses, and got no response in most cases and "we'll let you know" (still waiting) in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stamp isn't mentioned outside of the image caption. Was the Tercentenary Committee involved with it, and if so, perhaps worth mentioning in "Background"?
My sources on philatelic are not good. Swiatek & Breen illustrate it but don't mention a specific connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found this and this through Google, seems like they were connected. This probably isn't a reliable source for purposes of citing, but has a lot of information that could lead to other sources.

References/Sources

Most of it does not appear to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 10 is here (just click on the "pdf" link on the left to see the text). Footnote 11 is here, and footnote 8 is here. These also all appear to be part of volume 78, not volume 80.
That will be useful. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking that Flynn 2008 was issued without an ISBN.
Yes.

Overall

Thank you for the review. I think I"ve addressed everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt. Comments on two minor points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thank you for that website on the Congressional Record. Already adding it to next coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, Wehwalt; I look forward to the next one. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Sources appear to have been checked out and dealt with during the general review. For the sake of formality:

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Accessibility: no issues
  • Formats: no further issues
  • Quality and reliability: no issues. The sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Bobby131313 was the creator and uploader. He did not explicitly state a license but we've had this several times at FAC and I made an inquiry at MCQ a while back, and it's accepted that such are suitable images.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a fresh version and included that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images seem all to be pertinent to the article topic. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the alt text, hopefully that is everything. I think we're good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I don't add alt text to the infobox because it has captions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • I think that all of the other reviews must have caught everything because I'm not seeing anything that needs to be addressed.
  • No DABs, Redirects and external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maryland_Tercentenary_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=899884080"