Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sarastro1 (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 9 April 2014 (→‎Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar: close FAC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 16:00, 9 April 2014 [1].

Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about… the first US gold commemorative coins, allowing us to meet one of the more interesting characters in the history of numismatics, coin collector, dealer, and ruthless promoter Farran Zerbe. Today, he's mostly remembered for good, with a major numismatics award named for him, but he was a very controversial figure in his time.Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering Other sources with no named author?
  • FN19: why not cite author?
  • FN24: title doesn't match that given in source list - which is correct?
  • Publisher for Bowers?
  • Be consistent in how you abbreviate states. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
States abbreviation done. Rest will follow. I assume you mean the Bowers web site. I've adjusted the "other sources" so their publisher is considered the author for abc purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Fn19, I'm trying to cite Numismatist articles consistently and not all of them have authors. Fn24, and all others are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few issues, mainly minor:

Lead
  • "one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson and the other recently assassinated president William McKinley." Lack of punctuation and a missing "the" creates ambiguity. I suggest: "one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson, the other the recently assassinated president William McKinley."
Done, slightly modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fair authorities": for clarity, "exposition authorities" – (the word "fair" has several connotations in British English)
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two varieties are described in the first paragraph (briefly) and with slightly greater detail in the second. I think one description is enough.
Reprise axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Third para: the casual reader might be confused by "Congress passed authorizing legislation for an exposition" and "McKinley was assassinated at the Pan-American Exposition", thinking these expositions to be one and the same. Is it necessary to mention the location of McKinley's assassination?
No, though the fact that he was assassinated is certainly worth mentioning (and advertising :) ) so I've left that. It explains why he's on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation
  • "traveling exhibit" – exhibition? "Exhibit" suggests a single object rather than a collection
I'm not sure it's that strong in American English but : Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final two sentences of second para should be merged for smoother reading
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the encyclopedia of commemorative coins is relatively recent, I think the present tense "suggest" is appropriate, rather than "suggested"
Mr. Breen is no longer with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...enquiring what fair officials would like to see on the reverse of the coins". I'm puzzled by this: what design, surely? Or possibly, "enquiring what fair officials would like to see illustrated on the reverse of the coins". But the present wording doesn't make sense to me.
I've added design, but since the word tends to get overused, have balanced it by a deletion elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission." I would clarify this: "the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage of 250,000 being set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission."
Fixed, using different words.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • I don't think the link on John Reich can be correct – it goes to a Dubya administration appointee
There's just no getting rid of those engravers! I've redlinked. I'll work up a stub from one of my refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He modeled the McKinley obverse..." – it's not clear who "he" is
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote that contemporary accounts saw the 1903 issue as an innovation..." – are the first three words necessary?
I think some attribution is needed. I can't vouch for what he's saying on my own account.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a 1904 article in the American Journal of Numismatics stated that they 'indicate a popular desire...' " etc – "they" is not clearly defined.
  • It is not clear from the quote what concept would be pioneered in 1909 with the Lincoln cent
Revamped.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution, aftermath, and collecting
  • Watch again for any confusion that could arise from varied nomenclature: "fair", "exposition", "World's Fair" etc, all meaning the same thing. Also there could be issues over capitalisation, e.g. as between "the fair" and "the Exposition"
I've reserved "fair" for use as a noun. I do want to use it because it is the common term, used in the song, the film ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and for co-ordinating sales with the vendors of near-worthless imitation fractional gold pieces, which were half price with the purchase of a dollar coin." I'm not clear with what was going on here: purchasers of the Exposition dollar could buy near-worthless imitations at half the normal price of these imitations? The deal, whatever it was, needs to be explained more clearly.
There was a vendor selling replicas of old privately-issued small gold pieces, which actually contained very little gold. I've tweaked a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grading service population figures" – what does this phrase mean?
I've clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate there will be little difficulty in dealing with these points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be. Thank for the review. You have not seen the last of Mr. Zerbe.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting these done. I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: your responses are fine by me. I will keep my eyes alert to the future doings of the egregious Zerbe. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. He will return soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
    • All images are fine, copyright wise. I'm going to clean up two to make them less distracting, and I have concerns about the huge amount of whitespace at the end of #Design. Also, why does the Jefferson medal not have a caption yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the formatting on that. My mistake, I broke it in delinking John Reich (see above).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, here's my prose review:
  • one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson, and the other, the recently assassinated president William McKinley. - wouldn't this go better with the mention of two varieties?
  • They were the first gold United States commemorative coins. - a footnote regarding the first non-gold commemorative coins?
I think it's addressed in the article by mentioning Zerbe's involvement in an earlier issue.
  • That means that there were already extant commemoratives, but does not indicate what the first was. Basically, a bit of trivia, to show why the qualifier "gold" is necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth in the high hundreds to low thousands of dollars, - worth in the high? Might need rephrasing
I don't see the issue, it should be understandable to the reader. Fairly common phrase, in my experience. Do you have an alternative?
  • I don't see "worth in the high" used in RSes through this search (rather, the first link is this article!), except following "net worth" (a noun, which can be in something). The less specific "hundreds" or several hundred may be acceptable, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he secured the return of the Louisiana territory from Spain via the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso the following year, and through other agreements. - this leads me to question when the territory was actually in the hands of the French again
God knows. I think that level of detail is beyond the scope of what I am trying to do here, basically teach a very brief history lesson to those who have forgotten or did not get it in school.
  • I've reworked a lot of the paragraph about Napoleon and the purchase (it felt really clunky); please double check that I did not change the meaning.
I made a minor tweak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar coin issue - do we need coin?
Deleted with issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secretary of the Treasury - worth linking (or naming?)
OK. Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Anthony Swiatek ..." is rather short, and I'm tempted to split the sentences off and merge them with the surrounding paragraphs
  • Is "determined upon" the best wording? Agreed upon?
  • White space in #Design is still prominent. Worse comes to worse, the Panama coin can be dropped, or we can put the medals side by side
If you wouldn't mind, the medals side by side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barber's medal had been modeled from life; McKinley had sat for the chief engraver. - isn't the second clause rather redundant?
No, I suppose Barber could have observed McKinley say, during a speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "actual" fit in here? An "actual" person?
As opposed to a personification of Liberty. "Historic" if you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be as often called by the shortened version.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a billion-dollar gold piece" - Wow. Reminds me of Canada's $1 million Canadian Gold Maple Leaf... what would the size of the thing have been? (not really something to act on)
Source doesn't say.
It's tracking what Zerbe had to say about the issue, plus the fact, which is stated in the source, that he did not identify himself as involved in the sale.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – immaculate, as we have come to expect from this source on this subject. Just three small comments:

  • Background
    • "Napoleon came to power in 1799" – I don't suppose any reader will imagine he came to power in the US, but it still might be as well to say "came to power in France".
  • Design
    • "Nomismatic historian" – "numismatic" I assume, but I didn't like to change it – one never knows.
  • Distribution, aftermath, and collecting
    • "imitation fractional gold pieces" – I couldn't quite grasp the meaning of this; that is, I know what all the words mean, but as a phrase they left me puzzled. Is it that the pieces had a minute percentage of gold in them?

Wehwalt continues to make numismatic articles interesting even to those like me who are not predisposed towards the subject. As well as covering the essentials fully, clearly and authoritatively, he throws in fascinating stuff about the 9-mile walk in the Agricultural Building (the mind boggles), and the origins of the song "Meet Me in St. Louis". The illustrations are as fine as in other coin articles from this contributor, which is saying a lot. Top flight stuff. – Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I don't see any issues, although I'd disagree with Tim's comment above about the need to specify where Napoleon came to power. Given that the whole paragraph is about French acquisition of the territory, it's pretty clear that Nappy is French.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and support. I've made the changes Tim suggested, but I'm going with Sturm on the Napoleon matter. I think people know who it is and I agree it is clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me (though don't blame me when you find François Hollande sitting in the governor's chair in Louisiana – yet another French foreign adventure to distract the public from disaster at home). Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (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/Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition_dollar/archive1&oldid=603476126"