Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [1].

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a half dollar a bit different from the run of the mill anniversary commemorative. For one thing, it was the first commemorative coin ever sold on a drive in basis. Only in California.Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

Sup Wehwalt, well met.

Just wondering about the turn of phrase, the low hundreds of dollars? Slightly unwieldy—I know what you're saying of course—could it be tweaked I wonder?

Slight MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Prep/Design/Prod sections.

Interesting what you say about the drive-thru distribution, Since it was the first occasion—sufficiently a clam to notability on its own—can more be said upon it? It would add a human element that the WP:READER, etc, might identitfy with, without having to be a numismatist :)

Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're doing well. On the low hundreds of dollars, can you suggest prose here? This is one I've struggled with, how to put it into a thumbnail. I don't have too much more info on the drive-in booths. What you've said is why I keep stressing the point, it's a very California thing to do. I've moved one of the images which I hope will help. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Greetings. Just a couple of points, barely worth mentioning:

Refs 19, 22 and 34 breach the MoS-preferred format for page ranges (232–233 etc)
Ref 8: I always like to see the publisher's name rather than/as well as the web address. In this case the publisher in Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. Up to you.

Otherwise, links to sources are working, formats are consistent, and the sources chosen all meet the FA criteria for quality/reliability.

On to 200. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hope you're doing well ... those things are done. As for numbers, we shall see ... harder to bring enthusiasm to the table sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

The usual high-quality fare. A few minor, rather picky points:

Legislation

"John Cochran of Missouri reported that bill back on April 23, with a recommendation that it pass,[13] Cochran brought the bill to the House floor on May 27, 1936." Aside from the comma splice (I think a semi colon would work best), "he" can replace the second "Cochran".
"come forward this year": that year?

Preparation

This may be an Engvar thing, but to my rather jaundiced British eye, "gotten" feels wrong, particularly when "got" will do just as well. Ignore me if this is fine in AmEng, obviously.

I believe it’s acceptable in American English, but a bit colloquial. Proceeded, began, started, commenced.. any would probably be a better fit.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW – that's in a very long sentence with a lot of sub-clauses

Avoided the phrase per MfB's suggestion, more or less. Sentence divided.--!!!!

That's the lot. As always, this is a prose review only. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review and MfB for their contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All good; another great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'm astonished that critics actually liked the depiction of the bear. It seems almost cartoonish to me. The reverse is rather interesting though.
All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

It's an American coin, so shouldn't it be "catalogs" instead of "catalogues"?
The obverse depicts ... and the reverse shows ... — Is this stated too authoritatively, given what the body says about guessing which is the obverse/reverse?

Both dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Do cents need to be translated into dollars (50 cents = .5 dollars), and is there any reason dollars is linked but cents is not?

The infobox at present gives the usual rendering to two decimal points, which is fine I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion given for diameter, but not thickness

Looks like a formatting error that I've fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time — Meaning 15 were issued that year, more than in any previous year?

Or since, for that matter, in terms of distinct issues. Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

several coins minted in prior years were produced again — Are these included in the 15?

No. Clarified.

Mr. Farley, the New York city committeeman — Worth a red link?

I've spent a couple of hours on this and I would consider a redlink (if need be) if I had his name ... The first Farley is very clear, James A. Farley, FDR's postmaster general and political fixer, hated by Republicans. The second is a bit more obscure. I thought it might be Thomas M. Farley, the corrupt sheriff of New York County but he died in 1934 and FDR removed him from office while governor so it wouldn't make sense. The joke is obscure but it's the most notable thing that was said during the discussion. It's not actually sure whether this is a public official or political type, but in NYC I'm not sure there's a difference. I'll keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation

Jacques Schnier — Worthy of a red link? Any information about him?

A lot out there on Google. I agree worth a redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the original designs — Do these, and/or photographs of them, survive?

Yes, they are illustrated in The Numismatist for September 1936. The copyright might be a bit dodgy though because even though the magazine wasn't copyrighted at the time, Schnier lived until 1988. The bear looks more or less the same, but it's a slightly different bridge view. You might be able to view it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would he hold the copyright himself, rather than the government—in which case, it would be in the public domain?

He can transfer the copyright to the government, it doesn't become copyright free until it's issued on a coin. So if the original design is significantly different, he probably still holds the copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design

Why is the question of which side is which so confusing? Is "Liberty"/"In God we Trust"/the mint mark/the denomination not usually on the obverse?

True, but there has been considerable variation on that on commemoratives. For regular issue coins, which side is which is determined by the requirements of the Coinage Act of 1873 that the obverse be a design emblematic of Liberty and that there be an eagle on the reverse of all except the smallest coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production, distribution and collecting

the San Francisco Clearing House Association, a group of banks — the San Francisco Clearing House Association was a group of banks, or is this a list of different entities?

Clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk)`

Drive-in, or drive-through?

I think drive-in covers it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

#9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 — Page links redirect to govinfo.gov

That's what the template generates. I think you can search through from there, but I've had trouble linking directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a different page (e.g., here) might do the trick, or to the pdf (e.g., here).

I'll play with it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solid work, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise and for the review. Those things are done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement, the links suggested by Usernameunique have been implemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Two minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in every review has been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

Reference 16 seems to be missing its ending bracket.

Otherwise, I don't really see anything seriously wrong with the article. Just a few minor points:

it allowed motorists, for the first time, to drive quickly and easily between San Francisco and Oakland. - there's a lot of commas here, do you want to move "for the first time" to the end?

I think the phrase would get a bit lost at the end and there's some risk of ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

building of the Golden Gate Bridge - "building" sounds like an awkward way to say "construction". Do you mean the actual construction or the completion?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and had not yet been completed - I suppose it may sound better if you say "that had not yet been completed"

Done.

The bridge had opened with a celebration on November 12, 1936 that continued for three days - "a three-day celebration that started on November 12" perhaps?

Done slightly differently but to the same effect.

Reference 35 has some weird formatting. Are the pipe characters supposed to be in the title?

Done.

.[38]. - an extra period there

Done.

That's all I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all those things, except as noted. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thanks for another great article! If you have time, could you take a quick look at my current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I'll be over there hopefully by tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

Happy to support, just a couple of comments for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

one to honor the Bay Bridge's completion that year, the other to honor both that and the Golden Gate Bridge, also under construction. The bill that only honored the Bay Bridge was — could do with some variation

Variated.

extend 8 miles (13 km) — As a Brit, I'd tend to extend for, just seeking reassurance that your wording is standard in AE

It's not something that I ever thought of as ENGVAR but it sounds good to me as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 12 December 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.