Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2022 [1].

Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Another of the 1936 commemoratives. This one mostly scandal-free, though not very popular. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

edit
  • Suggesting to link Wisconsin in the lead (it is linked in the prose but not in the lead).
History of Wisconsin linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its first governor, Henry Dodge, was sworn in on July 4, 1836" — I'm not sure, but our article says that he was in office from April 30, 1836.
It looks like his commission was signed on April 30 (see here at 3.17), but he was appointed effective July 3, 1836, which per our article Wisconsin Terrority was the date of establishment thereof. However, as July 3 was a Sunday, he would not have been sworn in that day, quite apart from the symbolism of being sworn in on July 4.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a subcommittee led by Colorado's Alva B. Adams.[b][14]" v. "each passed without debate or dissent[18][c]" — footnote after reference or before reference? (of-course, just a suggestion)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badger is linked twice.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link takes care of any ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our article, baking soda, makes it clear that it goes by other names in Commonwealth countries. The advice of SOB is useful, but this is the natural way of referring to the brand and substance, and sometimes you have to put links adjacent to each other.
  • I think that Vermeule quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote.
OK
  • "included 15 coins put aside" v. "no fewer than fifteen were issued" (emphasis mine) — I think we need consistency here
OK.
I think the salient point is that it was triple face value. What a half dollar was worth in 1936 is less important than that.
  • "MADISON, WISC". or rubber-stamped" — erroneous full-stop?
Yes. Done.
Undoubtedly, but the books are published as R.S. Yeoman.

That is it. It is a pleasure reading this article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Template:inflation part, feels useless here to know how much 1.5 USD means today, as this part is for readers to know that the coin, with 50 cents face value, sells three times much. That's it, no more no less, the only important part for this is "three times much", not 1.5 USD means how much today, I think even 1.5 billion dollars wouldn't change anything.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with that point being ignored, was just a suggestion. Wehwalt, any updates on other points? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been distracted with other things. They're dealt with now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. I am satisfied with the changes/responses. Happy to support! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Wehwalt knows my views on reproducing words that were originally in all-caps, and I shan't bleat on about this again: happy to agree to differ. The only drafting point that flitted across my mind was that the 80-odd-word quote at the end of the Design section might look better as a block-quote. I do not press the point. Otherwise, clear, concise, balanced, well illustrated and in all respects of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll look at those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • I don't think I've ever reviewed a coin before, so it'll be a layman review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, it appears badger is duplinked in the article body, but not linked in the intro at all.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arm holding pickax with lead ore" Missing e in pickaxe?
I see I'm inconsistent there. Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these early miners chose to live in their shafts" What is a shaft in this context? I could imagine other non-native Anglophones would also be confused.
Piped.
  • Were such coins strictly for collection or could they be used as payment too?
I've made it clear now that they were legal tender. It says so in the legislation.
Done.
  • "An exceptional specimen" What does exceptional mean in this context?
Virtually unmarked, well struck. I've provide a pipe.
  • "The Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar was designed by David Parsons and Benjamin Hawkins" Why is Parsons listed first when the text states Hawkins' design was not based on the older version?
The sources give them both credit in various forms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment from HF - the pricing bit. The article currently states "The deluxe edition of R. S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins, published in 2020, lists the coin for between $175 and $250, depending on condition". Breaking out my 2021 (non-deluxe) paperback of Yeoman's Blue Book, p. 201 puts the coin at $110 for AU-50, $120 for MS-60, $130 for MS-63, and $160 for MS-65. So either 1) the price was rather volatile between 2020 and 2021 2) Yeoman uses significantly different methodology between the Red Book (which you used) and the Blue Book 3) The price range listed in the Red Book is for higher grades than the Blue Book (which seems somewhat unlikely, given the improbability of finding a piece of 1930s silver coinage graded in a condition above what the Blue Book lists) or some combination of 1) & 3). If the answer here is 1) or 2), I'm not convinced that the product pricing information bar at WP:NOTCATALOG is met. Hog Farm Talk 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I generally buy the big Red Book every two years, and that has been sufficient. What do you propose? I'm just trying to give a general idea of value. Incidentally, I think it would be that you'd rarely find a lower grade, since these coins were not dumped into circulation by the issuer, and were sold after the worst of the depression, so they would not have been spent to salvage the fifty cents as happened with earlier issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What were the grade ranges given in the Red Book? If it's similar ranges, I guess could the 2021 Blue Book numbers be substituted? The piece seems to have dropped in value by a fair bit, I guess, unless the Red Book range starts somewhere around MS-65. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can get to my copy of the Red Book on Monday, will let you know then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, grades given in the Red Book are for AU-50, MS-60, then each from 62 to 66.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So either it dropped quite a bit in value, or there's differing methodologies. Any idea which one? Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could only speculate. Is there anything of relevance in the introductory pages of the Blue Book, talking about the coin market?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything special about the market that I see, the methodology is stated to be "The values shown are representative prices paid by dealers for various United States coins. These are averages of prices assembled from many widely separated sources. On some issues slight differences in price among dealers may result from proximity to the various mints or heavily populated centers. Other factors, such as local supply or demand or dealers' stock conditions, may also cause deviations from the prices listed." before talking about how mint grade coins bring premiums while circulated generally don't, and discusses how rare ones are often sold at auction which causes price fluctuation there. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me the bibliographic info, I'll sub in the 2021 information.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be out of town and away from the book for several days. I don't consider this to be a big sticking point. Are you okay with this waiting until after I'm off wikibreak? I don't think this is anything that affects FA status. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, do you have that info? I'd like to see if we can wrap up this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took so long - title is "Handbook of United States Coins 2021" author is given as R. S. Yeoman even though he is dead, Jeff Garrett is listed as Senior Editor, Q. David Bowers is listed as a research editor, and Kenneth Bressett is listed as Editor Emeritus. Publisher is Whitman Publishing, LLC. Publishing location appears to be given as Pelham, Alabama. Edition is "The Official Blue Book 78th Edition". ISBN is 978-0794848057 (yes, the book's isbn is printed in both the back cover and copyright information without all of the dashes). The pricing information for the Wisconsin Terroritial Commemorative half dollar is found on p. 201. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I'm using the paperback version. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll work on this in the morning. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==== Some support by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ==== I support this nomination on criteria 1d, 1e, 2b and 4. These criteria are often overlooked in FAC, and the article is a great read too! In my opinion, this should be a model for many articles which is overlong and disorganized. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Placeholder—will deal with this soon. SN54129 15:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume spotchecks are not necessary regarding a FAC from a candidate of the nom's calibre unless told otherwise by @FAC coordinators: .
    The sources appear to be of the highest quality pertaining to the topic, including a liberal sprinkling of expert scholarship, and the few primary sources are used sparingly and only when focussed on points of data. I could not in my—admittedly not in-depth—review of the databases find anything that jumped out as demanding answer to the question, "why is this not used?" nor suggest anything extraneous to the topic.
    The source review is, therefore, passed. The software thing throws up a couple of things, but the important thing is consistency, rather than rectal-probing ourselves over processwonkery. SN54129 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You got a bit technical for me towards the end there SN, but I'm taking that as a pass. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Wisconsin centennial half dollar commemorative obverse.jpg, File:Wisconsin centennial half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg need separate license tags for the coin and the photograph. (t · c) buidhe 21:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've faced this situation with Bobby131313's images before. I've added a tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by query

edit
Yes, also that's the official terminology, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (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/Wisconsin_Territorial_Centennial_half_dollar/archive1&oldid=1066955755"