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 SandyGeorgia 18:30, 20 March 2011 [1].

---

Kennedy half dollar[edit]

Kennedy half dollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Kennedy half dollar/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s):RHM22 (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...we think it meets the criteria. The Kennedy half dollar was the source of great public interest when it was first issued only months after the Kennedy assassination. The double whammy of hoarding and rising silver prices both meant that the half dollar failed to circulate despite massive mintages, and effectively destroyed the half dollar as a coin used in trade. It has never recovered, and the coin is only struck today for collectors. Written at the special request of Laser Brain in honor of Be Nice to the Delegates Week! Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the coauthor of this article, and I hope you will all enjoy it as much as we do!-RHM22 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reference 12 looks inelegant as it has a bare URL rather than a page title. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was a missing close bracket, fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Bowers appears in References but not Bibliography
• Be consistent in notating retrieval dates - "Retrieved date" vs "Retrieved on date"
• Ref 13: Time should be italicized, missing closing punctuation
  • Still missing closing punctuation, retrieval date notation is inconsistent with other entries
• Spell out or link UPI and AP on first occurrences
  • AP appears before Associated Press
• "The (Oxnard, California) Press-Courier" and similar - is there a more elegant way to notate that? Refs 24 and 27 each use a slightly different formatting, either of which is a bit of an improvement IMO
  • Is "The" part of the title of this publication?
• Publisher for ref 29?
  • Make sure the punctuation remains consistent
• Refs 41 and 43: punctuation
  • The former (now 40) still uses a comma where it should use a period
• "1966 edition ed."?
• Be consistent in using Atlanta or Atlanta, Ga (if the latter, should be GA)
  • And if you've decided not to include the state, don't do so for New York either
• You've got three different versions of the publisher name that begins with "Whitman" - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these things are caused by two editors working on the article and adopting mildly different personal referencing formats, and will be corrected. Sorry, I usually try to check those things before a FAC reviewer is put to the bother.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki, for pointing out all those errors! My apologies for adding so many inconsistencies. I believe I fixed all of them except for the Bowers one, because I don't have that book and I'm not sure of the exact publisher, year, ISBN etc.-RHM22 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually, it was Tomaska and not Bowers, but it's fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tomaska book is part of the Bowers series of guides, you see, and he usually writes them himself, but I'm guessing he's getting on in years, Bowers that is. My goof.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fixed - a few more nitpicks above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think everything has been fixed now. The best way is to put a comma after periodicals and books and a period after organizations, right? In other words, a comma after "Time" but a period after "United States Mint". Let me know if not and I can fix them.-RHM22 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under most circumstance I would agree, but since the Time reference in this case has only a retrieval date, not a publication date, use a period there too. Other references look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "and production of silver proof sets in which the dime, quarter and half dollar were struck in 90% silver were first minted in 1992." The first ("production of") and last ("were first minted") don't agree with each other. Just removing "production of" seems to be the easiest fix.
• Inception: Comma needed after first use of Jacqueline.
• Release: I see "1964-dated" and "1964–dated" here; I believe the one with the hyphen is correct. If that's the case "1966–dated" from later in the text also should be changed.
• "with a layers of copper nickel on each side of a layer of pure copper." Remove first "a".
• "They bore a 1965 date, a date which...". The "a date" part is quite redundant.
• Another redundancy here: "opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed to putting Eisenhower on a base metal coin initially scuttled the package." To replace "opposed to", you could try "against", or there are plenty of other ways to change one of them.
• I see "copper-nickel" and "Copper–nickel" at various times. The use of a hyphen or en dash should be made consistent.
• "the Treasury was holding 200 million of the new base metal half...". Is "dollar" missing from this, or was the omission on purpose?
• Collecting: Remove first "in" from "which differentiates them from the pieces in sold in bags and rolls." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are now done, though in the case of Jacqueline, I changed the sentence in a different manner than what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

• In the lede's second paragraph, you have "Once the coin was released in April 1964, they immediately vanished from circulation..." This should either be singular or plural.
• Under "Inception," you have "Kennedy's widow Jacqueline preferred the half dollar"; shouldn't this be "Kennedy's widow, Jacqueline, preferred the half dollar." I could be wrong, but I think the commas are preferred.
• There's at least one instance of "US". I think "U.S." is preferred.
• Under "Switch to base metal", the use of "consigning" in the first sentence seems to be a bit of negative POV. I prefer specie, too, but a more neutral wording might be preferred. Some people like fiat money.

Despite these quibbles, I enjoyed reading the article and think it's the best numismatics article yet. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! All of those are now fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support With my limited reviewing skills, I see nothing save a few diction quibbles that are merely personal preference instead of anti-grammatical. I am surprised at how interesting an article can be about such a prosaic topic. I read it with great interest. The only suggestion I have would be to put up a close-up detail image of the later versions for comparison with the heavily-accented hair, which is a bit unclear to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll talk to the photographer and see if he has one of the "normal hair". Thank you for the kind words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose: Support Still Oppose

Inspection

• One of Kennedy's final acts had been to request Congress to appropriate funds to allow the resumption of striking of silver dollars in 1964 and it was proposed that Kennedy appear on this piece. - 2 issues with this:
  1. The sentance doesn't make it clear that Kennedy's appearance on the half dollar be made till after his death nor do the surrounding sentances.
  2. it doesn't say who he would have replaced.
• There is no mention of who first proposed that Kennedy appear on the half dollar , only that when his widow was given the choice she picked it. The change should address your other concerns above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to make it clear why she felt the quarter wouldn't do. Her reasons for not wanting the dollar (which had not been struck in almost thirty years) are not recorded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did Mrs. Kennedy make any other proposals to the design change other than a change in profile?

Her concern was actually with the hair. She wanted the part made less prominent and more highlights in the hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release

• Congressional approval was necessary as an 1890 statute required legislative action for a new coin design, unless 25 years had passed since the last design change for that denomination, and the existing Franklin half dollar had been introduced in 1948. - The sentence feels out-of-place in the body. It should be moved as a notation where that such info is usually mentioned in other articles as it breaks up the flow. Maybe some rewording could fix this, but that's a rather huge chunk of info so I'm a bit sceptical.

Collecting

• There is a lot of restating of the same info in multiple places beyond the lead. Specifically, the Collecting section has multiple instances of unnecessary repeat info.

Other

• The article needs some more copyediting. A few of the issues:
  • A block-long line The hyphenated word sounds awkward
  • Needs some copyediting for commas. I've removed a few, but they seemed to be used a bit too liberally.
  • the prose needs more active voice such as "Denver Mint began receiving" -> "Denver Mint received"
  • The first clad half dollars, with an outer layer of 80% silver and 20% copper bonded to an inner layer of 21% silver and the remainder copper - could be rephrased as it took me 3-4 times reading that to grasp what it was saying, particularly because of that last part.
  • The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar (with silver-clad specimens to be struck for collectors and copper-nickel clad pieces for circulation), eliminated silver from the half dollar, and authorized the sale of old Morgan dollars struck at the Carson City Mint. - removing the info inside the parentheses causes the sentence to not read right. - "The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar..., eliminated silver from..."陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've already started work to address your concerns and work will continue. I hope you will stay in touch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the specific concerns, other than the commas, and have asked Brianboulton (talk · contribs) to copyedit it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last point does not need to be changed. The sentence reads (without the parenthesis) like this: "The dispute dragged on for over a year before Nixon signed a bill on December 31, 1970 which authorized the Eisenhower dollar, eliminated silver from the half dollar, and authorized the sale of old Morgan dollars struck at the Carson City Mint."-RHM22 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, had another look at it and found some new info. No info in the body (just the lead) that the Kennedy half dollar would replace the Franklin Half dollar.
• No source to confirm that the Franklin half dollar was widely used, just from what I've seen past half-dollars were in general circulation.
• Which Mint are the current proof available? That isn't made clear. Is it all? Just one?
• It's also not clear in the collection section whether silver was removed from proof sets ever.陣内_Jinnai 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've fixed two of the above four. San Francisco is the only mint that still produces proofs, but is that really necessary to add? It's already noted that production moved there in 1968. As for referencing the circulation of the Franklin, I have left that for Wehwalt, because none of my references say anything about that.-RHM22 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the stricken part above. I found a place to insert the San Francisco information without interrupting the article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've covered all the specific concerns mentioned as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree. All of the above comments have been addressed.-RHM22 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)With the exception of 1965 through 1967, proofs have been struck each year in the same metallic composition as business strikes. the sentance implies that business strikes are still occuring. Is that the case as it didn't appear so.陣内_Jinnai 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Change to "uncirculated pieces", I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business strikes are still being produced though. All the pieces produced that aren't in either proof or mint sets are business strikes.-RHM22 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the rolls/bags considered that? I guess so, though it sounds odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is tricky, but I would say so, since there really isn't a better word or phrase. The way I would define it would be any coin that is not minted with special or unusual attention.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've found an answer. I replaced "uncirculated" in that sentence with "regular issue".-RHM22 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suits, and thus we don't have to worry about Bicentennial exceptions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check over this tomorrow just to make certain nothing cropped up since the copyedit.陣内_Jinnai 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay now.陣内_Jinnai 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon. The lead still implies that the Franklin Half dollar was in wide circulation, but its not clear from the prose that was the case.陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede revised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the remaining issue is dealt with. I would suggest per the discussion on my talk page that if said source indicates it and isn't already used here to add it as "Further reading" material.陣内_Jinnai 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it is a subscription only NY Times article, I don't know how much use it will be (from 1968) as it is behind a pay/subscription wall. Thank you for your work. You've helped improve the article considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. they were challenging, but the fixes were very important and well worth the effort.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:1976HalfReverse.jpg and File:Kennedy-Half-Dollar-Accented-Hair.jpg - could you identify the engraver, as you did for the other coin images?
• File:Kennedy-Half-Dollar-Accented-Hair.jpg needs a PD-USGOV or money-US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've fixed both of those.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an engaging and professionally written contribution. May I be allowed one tiny, tiny, nit-pick? The meaning of "currently-struck" is not clear to me. I think it means no longer minted, but it could mean the opposite. Sorry, I understand now.Graham Colm (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it means that the coin is currently minted. I can see how that would be confusing though, since "struck" sometimes means no longer used. I'll fix that to clarify.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to switch the first uses of "struck" and "minted", because it both looks better and removes any ambiguity.-RHM22 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Why is "currently-struck" hyphenated? Same for "previously-struck".
• Demand for half-dollars dropped, with casinos (where they were commonly used) preferring to produce their own fifty-cent tokens." "With" is almost never a good linking word, and certainly isn't here. Is this suggesting that the reason demand dropped was because casinos preferred to produce their own tokens?
• "... in most years being struck in the range of 20 million pieces ...". "20 million" isn't a range.
• "The half dollar would go from 90% silver ... The new half dollars would retain their silvery appearance ... The coin would also have an inner layer of 21% silver and 79% copper." Why all these "woulds"? Were they or weren't they reduced from 90% silver etc.?

Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your first three suggestions, but I'm not certain about the last one. The reason for the unusual wording is that the Coinage Act is being discussed prior to passage, meaning that the provisions of the act weren't yet approved. It does look awkward though, and I'd be alright with rewording it if you still think it's important.-RHM22 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nevermind, I'm wrong. It should definitely be reworded.-RHM22 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they've been fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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