Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maine Centennial 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 [1].

Maine Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a rather ugly US commemorative, but still one of interest, and somewhat valuable today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

Lead: "centennial commission decided to charge a premium" / Inception and legislation: "the centennial commission decided to issue it at a premium": For those who aren't coin buffs, could you explain in the article what this means?
"first considering a two-year extension for the National Screw-Thread Commission. Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads": I wonder whether it would be an idea to remove this? If I have understood it directly, it's not directly related to the Maine coin story. Also, for someone like myself who is not that familiar with various processes related to making coins, it feels like an extra layer of detail to decipher—especially if it is not directly related to the main story.
"Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads, Congressman Peters addressed the committee, of which he was not a member, regarding the Maine coinage proposal, telling of the history of the state and citizens' desire to celebrate the centennial, including with a commemorative coin." Even if you do remove the first bit, this sentence is awfully long, with lots of clauses. Would you consider breaking it up into more than one sentence, or break it using a semi-colon?

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be my biggest comment. I really believe the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Inception and legislation section get bogged down by detailing what every single person said chronologically. The reader needs to try to grasp the point of view of each of the many characters who are listed, and it gets difficult to keep track of the overall narrative. I have to admit that I gave up trying, because there are too many details and it gets exhausting. Plus, the structure gets quite repetitive: A said ____; B replied ____; C recalled that D had said ____. I would like to strongly suggest that you summarize the points more. Maybe you don't need to mention every single person. I see these people all have wiki-links so they must be historical people of some importance, but if you could find a way to remove unnecessary details that could help. Maybe there would be ways to merge structures of the type "A said ____; B said _____" to become, for example, "A and B discussed ____"? That's just an idea, but however you do it, I really think you need to make this section less dense.

I still have a few other smaller comments and will get to them soon. Moisejp (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair comment. My book references cover how these coins came to be very lightly if at all, and few have Congressional ProQuest. So I'm trying to increase the knowledge that is freely available to all. I will try to do it in a less dense way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out unnecessary detail and dealt with your other concerns. Thank you for the comments.

Thank you. I've got a bit busy the last few days, but plan to make time to continue this review soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of unnecessary detail has been an improvement. The Inception and legislation section is still a tiny bit dense for my tastes, but it may be a matter of personal preference, so that's OK. But its denseness means I don't feel I understand every detail as well as I should, and I have some questions:

"Initially, the idea was to have a circulating commemorative that could advertise the centennial celebrations in Maine, but subsequent to the approval of the legislation... " Is the "approval of the legislation" the same approval process that is described in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, or was it a previous level of approval? This wasn't clear to me. Or I think maybe the first paragraph is talking about state government, while the rest is talking about federal government? Maybe this could be spelled out more clearly for readers less familiar with the U.S. government.
Did you add clarification for what "issue it at a premium" means? I'm guessing it means instead of going into regular circulation, the coin is sold for an amount higher than its face value, but I'm not sure. If you're confident that should be clear to everyone, and no other reviewers have any doubt, maybe it's just me.

I had clarified the lede, now I've tried to make it very clear in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Minnesota's Oscar E. Keller asked Peters to confirm there would be no expense to the government, which Peters did... In response to questions by Gard, Peters explained that although Maine would pay for the dies..." This sounds possibly contradictory but I couldn't tell whether the two statements were supposed to be related or were talking about different things. Ah, but now that I realize the context of the second to fourth paragraphs is the federal government, it seems to make more sense. Could this be unclear to other readers? It could be another reason to make this context extra clear from the outset.

"federal" added.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"On May 3, McLean asked that the three coin bills (Maine, Alabama and Pilgrim) be considered by the Senate immediately, rather than awaiting their turns, but Utah Senator Reed Smoot objected: Smoot's attempt to bring up an anti-dumping trade bill had just been objected to by Charles S. Thomas of Colorado." The colon suggests that what follows it is the reason for Smoot's objection, but the exact implication is not clear to me. Was Smoot grumpy that his own bill had been rejected, so he wasn't going to let another bill get fast-tracked?

I looked at the Congressional Record again and what you said is the way it looks. Smoot basically says, if we are going to go by the agenda, we should start with the first bill on it, which they do, but pass by about forty items before they get to one they actually discuss (deportation of aliens). I've tried to make this clearer, but am hampered by the source and the references to arcane Senate rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This was probably in an attempt to improve the striking quality of the coins, and if so, likely had limited success, as the full detail would not appear on many coins." I'm not convinced the second half of the sentence make sense as is. At minimum, I would take out "likely". Actually, maybe that's all you need. I was going to suggest a change of verb tense in the second half, but I'm not confident about that either. I would just take out "likely".

Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Near the rim are the name of the country and HALF DOLLAR." May I suggest it would be more straightforward and plain English to use "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" instead of "the name of the country" (which sounds a bit forced to me here).

This and the one below are my efforts to vary somewhat formulaic language common to most commemorative coins of the era. I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"with the excess over the round number" also feels a bit forced to me, but ignore this comment and the one above if you disagree.

That's all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done that. Thank you for the extensive comments. It is always good to get a new perspective on these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good. I'm happy to Support. Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

Just some minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there in commemoration of it—clunky, don't like sentence ending in "it"
They catalog—in BE, "catalogue" isn't a verb, is this acceptable in AE?

It may be numismatic (and philatelic) usage. I am determined to avoid saying "are worth". Changed to "list".

Relatively few sold —missing "were"?

I've done those. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Mike Christie

A couple of minor points that aren't worth withholding support for:

"They list for hundreds to thousands of dollars" -- this isn't strictly an "as of 2017" situation, but it might be good to provide date context in the lead -- prices can change, after all.

I think it is phrased vaguely enough that it should survive a good long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That legislation for a Maine Centennial half dollar had been introduced in the House of Representatives by that state's John A. Peters": two "that"s in quick succession.
Is it worth redlinking the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures?

Linked to the list of defunct committees.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"planned to give their endorsement of the bill": perhaps "planned to endorse the bill".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. Except as noted, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think this just needs image and source reviews. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews

All images appropriately licensed.
Add |lastauthoramp=y to the template to give Swiatek and Breen an ampersand as used in the notes.
Don't really think that this makes a difference, but the Congressional Record was not available to me prior to 1994. So I'm not sure that the links are actually useful. If they are available through Proquest or other subscription that should be noted.
Multiple redundant links to the Congressional Record.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above two: The Congressional Record cites are produced by a template. I will give some thought to a talk page note on the template to allow the page number to be de-linked. The others I've done. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal with the Congressional Record. Everything looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.