Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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) 15:14, 18 July 2016 [1].

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most beautiful of the commemorative half dollars and the rarest by design. I suppose by today's standards, the whole thing smacks of political incorrectness, especially the idea of Cook "discovering" an inhabited island. But it's still a nice coin.Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Singora (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a commemorative coin for the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin."

vs.

"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a coin commemorating the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin (or: coin's issue)."

And ....

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar came about because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

vs.

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was minted (struck) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

And ...

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollars by design". Is the plural intentional?

I've made those changes, though in my own words (the plural was a mistake and has been corrected). Thank you indeed for the careful review. It shows how one falls into habits in writing ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! That wasn't a "careful review" -- I skimmed the article after seeing your blurb re: Captain Cook. I can't do too much more as your references aren't linked. If you could give me URLs to specific pages I'll check the sources, though I'm guessing these books aren't available for preview on Google. The one I did check pointed to George Mason University and asked me for a password.
In the legislation section, I can email you copies of any sources you desire. The books I own and I don't think they do google books preview. I can email you copies of book pages but not until next week as am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, go for it. Next week is fine. I'm pretty sure that by emailing me (even via Wikipedia) I'll get your contact details. If this is an issue contact the administrator CasLiber. I've emailed him in the past and he ought to be able to confirm I'm a legitimate company owner. Singora (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will send you an email. The Congressional sources are easy, the others I can send you a selection of pages, plus any individual ones you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Email received. I will of course treat your details as confidential. You can forward me PDFs, JPGs, PNGs and/or ZIPs. I don't know how senior you are, or if you're an administrator, but further down this list is an article about Catherine Zeta Jones. I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this. At the very bottom of the page is a video game article, Nights into Dreams. LazerBrain asked for a source review, but no one has pointed out that refs 41 and 66 (among others) are incorrect. You may wish to pass this info on to someone. Singora (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator, though this is not a matter of administrative jurisdiction. If you reply to the email I sent you, I will send you the government materials immediately and jpgs when I get home in a week of the book pages. My identity, Gary M. Greenbaum, is not confidential, though I choose to edit under a pseudonym. I can't send you stuff until you reply to my email as attachments are not possible through the Wikipedia mail system. I will pass on what you say about the Zita-Jones article to the FAC going on there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I've replied to your Wiki email via Yahoo and sent you an email via Wikipedia. You'll now have two of my email addresses, and can use either to forward me your stuff. I didn't realize you can't send attachments with this Wiki set up. Singora (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've cut the first and changed the licensing on the second. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead states "In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill" whereas the body states "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii". Rather than merely point out the contradiction there, I'm going to dig deeper. I know next to nothing about the Hawaii legislature, whether territorial or state. OTOH, I'm more than very familiar with the territorial legislature of Alaska, where I live. In those days, legislation passed by the Alaska legislature was in the form of memorials to Congress. The territory's delegate would then introduce that legislation in Congress, which would consider and/or act on it. I would assume that Hawaii operated the same way, but I've not read any of Hawaii's organic acts and therefore really can't say.
They passed both a resolution and an act, actually. They may not have used the form you mention. I'll tweak it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Inception" section – to me, it comes across as disjointed and perhaps a bit redundant to make a vague reference to "an organization" which was authorized to purchase the coins from the Mint, then in the very next sentence explicitly mention that organization, yet these sentences appear in different paragraphs.
  • Also in the second paragraph of "Inception", the specific affiliations of some individuals were mentioned, but not of others. I was still in the dark after reading that text as to whether some of the people mentioned were local Hawaiians, or federal officials, or perhaps both.
  • In the first sentence of the "Legislation" section, is Don Taxay the only person known to have commented on that particular aspect? Of course, other perspectives are helpful if they exist, especially if they're non-numismatic in nature.
Yes. He's the only one, and it's just an offhand comment. Numismatics is thinly covered by references, I fear. Most of his book
  • The wording of the first and second sentences of that section comes across as slightly repetitive.
  • "South Dakota Senator Peter Norbeck" – in this particular context, "Senator" appears to run afoul of MOS:JOBTITLES, which I realize is widely ignored because bludgeoning readers with officialdom at every turn is evidently more important.
I'm aware of it, but I feel in the context of political and numismatic articles, having that as lower case in the midst of capital letters is distracting to the reader.
  • "with the profits to be used toward establishing a Captain James Cook collection in the territorial archives." As the mechanics of the coin's distribution and pricing were mentioned earlier on, I'm confused as to whether "the profits" spoken of were those made by the Mint or by the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission.
  • In "Production, distribution, and collecting" – The statement "The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution" is far enough removed in the article from the statement "The Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint" that it may help to elaborate on the exact arrangement those two entities had.
  • "and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". Do we know what sort of price they fetched at that auction? As it occurred a lot more recently than the 1920s, I would hope that it's not impossible to find out. It may appear to run afoul of WP:RECENT to explicitly mention auction prices or other values from the past few years in the very next paragraph but leave out similar details from a few decades ago.
None of my online sources address this. I will be home in a week to check the book sources. Most coin periodicals don't have extensive archives. The Numismatist does and I checked, and nothing. It is, by the way, the Auctions by Bowers and Merena " Bank of Hawaii Consignment and the Ezra Cole Collection", January 23-25, 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an inquiry to the librarian at the American Numismatic Association library, asking if they have the auction catalog/prices realized. They have a large number of auction catalogs but they are not inventoried online. I will work on the other concerns expressed above soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I enjoyed reading this. As the tasks I undertake on here put me into regular contact with the dregs of the encyclopedia, it's nice to discover the occasional article which is far removed from that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm very grateful for your comments. I hope I've answered them all satisfactorily. If I haven't responded, I've gone ahead and done as suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Singora Singora (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) OK - I'll make a start. I've got 5 PDFs and some HTML. I'll get this done by Sunday. This is later than anticipated, but I got hit out of the blue with some stuff for a new client. More to follow.[reply]

Sorry about that. Do you want me to hold off on sending you the pdfs from the books (I plan to tomorrow) or should I send them?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've got five PDFs:

  • 1. Hawaii house hearings
  • 2. Hawaii house report
  • 3. Hawaii Senate report
  • 4. Hawaii senate passage
  • 5. Hawaii house passage

And the following books:

  • 1. Numismatic Art in America (pages 174-175). The first ref holds up: wrote that the obverse "is too crowded, despite the large, flat, clothed bust" and that the various elements of the reverse design "are all too much for one small coin". The second is wrong: you've written He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin", whereas the source gives He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 is no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin.
Correct, I meant to put an ellipsis here. Fixed. Thank you.
  • 2. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (the five scans are too small to use + the quality is dire)
Will resend.
  • 3. United States Commemorative Coinage (pages 84-87). RE: "These represent the eight largest volcanic islands of Hawaii: Oahu, Maui, Kauai, the "Big Island" of Hawaii, Niihau, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Molokai". This is good. RE: "rising from obscurity" is very similar to the text "arising from obscurity".
I guess. But Taxay didn't make up the phrase, so I don't feel there's an issue. Sometimes there's only one really good track. Open to suggestions.
I thought of "emerging", but it's not as good. You're right -- "rising / arising" is the natural word. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog (pages 48-51). For page 48 you've got "Many Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars were purchased by non-collectors and display the effects of poor handling" and "At least three different counterfeits are known". These are fine. For page 50 you've got "Bruce Cartwright, Jr., was in charge of choosing a coin design for the Captain Cook commission. Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle arranged for him to meet Juliette May Fraser, a local artist. Cartwright had prepared cartoon-style drawings, with the portrait of Cook based on a Wedgwood plaque that had been owned by Queen Emma, showing the explorer facing right. Within two days, Fraser had produced sketches", "The reverse was based on a statue of King Kamehameha I of Hawaii, designed by Thomas R. Gould, and intended to symbolize the past and future glory of the Kingdom [of Hawaii]", "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany to Hawaii; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii" and "Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions". Why say "several sketches" when you only know for certain she made three?
If you don't think the three sketches shown justify "several", I will strike it.
Off the top of my head:
  • 1. YOU: Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions.
  • 2. ME: Juliette Fraser had drawn several (some / initial / sample / example) sketches, three of which are reproduced in the Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog. These illustrations share the same basic design elements, albeit with the chieftain and Diamond Head in different poses and positions. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a bit wordy. I think it's best just to mention the sketches. All we are trying to do here is establish she played with different ideas. I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (these five scans are too small)
  • 6. The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins (pages 95-99). For this source you've got "Of the remainder, half was to be sold on the Hawaiian Islands, half reserved for sale from elsewhere. The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution on behalf of the Captain Cook commission" and "Sales began October 8, 1928; sales were good and supplies were quickly exhausted. Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen, in their book on commemoratives, write that while there was never any scandal about these coins, there were unconfirmed rumors of hordes of coins, totaling as many as 1,500, bought by insiders and kept off the market". Not sure about this. The deal seems to be that 1500 of the 4975 intended for distribution in Hawaii were kept off the market. There's nothing to indicate that hoarding took place elsewhere. Perhaps you should clarify this. Note that the Bowers source uses the term "investors" rather than your "insiders".
If they got to buy more than the mintage limit of 5, they were insiders, but I'll strike the word. I've clarified that the rumors say that the hoarded coins came from the local allocation.
Good. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll save this before I continue. Singora (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 7. Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia (pages 235-239). For page 237 you have "The Philadelphia Mint coined 10,008 Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars in June 1928, with the eight pieces above the authorized mintage reserved for inspection and testing at the 1929 meeting of the annual Assay Commission. Fifty of the ten thousand were specially finished as sandblast proof pieces" and "One such grouping, of 137 pieces, comprised coins from an allotment for the Bank of Hawaii for sale to its employees. When the display coin was stolen, the bank president took the others off sale, and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". The source says the coins were placed in the bank's vault for over half a century. Nothing about 1986. For page 238 you've got "The price was $2 per coin, the highest for a half dollar commemorative to that point". This is okay.
The 1986 is on page 237. "at auction to the order of the Bank of Hawaii, Ltd. on January 23, 1986".
  • 8. A Guide Book of United States Coins (pages 1138-1139). For this you've got "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design; according to R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins published in 2015, it lists for between $1,850 and $11,000 depending on condition. The sandblast proofs are listed for up to $50,000 but none has recently been sold at auction—an exceptional specimen of the regular type went under the hammer for $25,850 in 2013". This is all good.


What am I supposed to do with PDFs? Tell me what sources link to which PDF. Singora (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PDFs are the copies of the government documents, hearing transcripts, congressional record, and so forth. They mostly support the "Legislation" section. I'll resend the others. Thank you for taking such time and effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent them to you. The five pdfs I sent you earlier are the hearing transcript, the committee report, and excerpts from the Congressional Record. Since there's only one per date, it should be clear when you open them--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do this over the next day or so. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two missing books Singora (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (pages 123-131).
    • Page 124: "On November 2, Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts wrote to Assistant Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly that Juliette Fraser's sketches were excellent and would translate well into a coin" and "Numismatic historian Don Taxay found it likely that members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures were pledged to support a Hawaii half dollar prior to a bill being submitted as preparations had begun".
Error! Correspondence with O'Reilly, along with the date, starts on page 123. Page 124 tells me the sketches had been prepared by Miss May Frazer. Why is he using her middle name?
I don't know why he uses her middle name. Adjusted.
Page 123 is also the correct source for your blurb re: members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. Why do you write "were pledged" instead of "had pledged"?
It struck me as vaguer and safer, since Taxay really doesn't tell us what was going on. I've adjusted all the page numbers complained of.
I've changed it to "had agreed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 127, 130: "Once Beach accepted the commission on March 12, 1928, Juliette Fraser's sketches were forwarded to him. On April 7, he sent completed models to the Mint and photographs to the Fine Arts Commission. Both the Mint and Houston responded with criticism, the former that the relief of the coin was high and difficult to reduce to coin-sized hubs"
Error! Page 124 tells me that Beach accepted on March 12.
Error! Pages 124 & 127 tell me the sketches were then forwarded to him
Error! You're telling me the relief was too high to reduce to "coin-sized hubs". This wasn't the problem. The deal was that the relief was simply too high for their machines (notice the Chief Engraver's comment: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin"). It was the text or lettering that, when reduced to coin-size, would be a problem: it was too small to start with and would be become indistinct when scaled down. The scaling issue, then, pertained to the text, not the height of the relief.
Examine the Caemmerer letter on p. 127. The relief was reportedly too high for their reducing machine (which was fairly common with commemoratives). I'm inclined to take Sinnock's word for it (it would have come from him originally), as he was the first chief engraver to be comfortable with the Janvier reducing machine.
You don't need to link to page 30, though if you re-read it you'll see the correspondents discus typefaces and letter-spacing. These are your scaling issues.
Finally, look again at that engraver's comment of yours: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin". Notice anything?
    • Page 129: "Ferns are visible under that Latin motto: Houston wanted the plants removed, but Beach insisted on retaining them to balance the design"
The word "balance" is the natural choice and can't really be changed.
    • Page 130: "Beach agreed to lower any high points that might cause the Mint difficulty"
Yep, this is okay.
    • Page 131: "Delegate Houston had a long list of quibbles about the coin's design. For example, Beach had placed an anklet on the chief's leg; Houston felt such an item would not have been worn. Beach defended some of his choices, such as the anklet (which was removed when Houston insisted), and promised to comply with the remainder. This did not satisfy Houston, who was also unhappy about the shape of the palm tree on the coin, and Beach modified the design again. Beach forwarded final models, indicating that he would only consider making changes if the Mint requested it. He wrote to Moore, I think the proper thing for Mr. Houston to do would be to take the sculptor and family to Hawaii and let us live in the cocoanut [sic] trees for a while and absorb the atmosphere of that paradise." and "The coin was endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts; on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval".
Error! Houston's objection to the anklet ("pertaining to a dancer rather than a warrior") is introduced on page 128. On page 131 he mentions the anklet has not been deleted.
Error! RE: "on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval" No. On May 2 Beach wrote to Moore explaining the changes. O'Reilly wrote to Beach to announce formal approval on May 9. You've confused the dates of two different letters.

More later.

I've fixed all these things, I hope. Thank you for all your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (Flyn) Singora (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page 97: "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection, purchased in part with funds raised from the coins, is now in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu"
This is fine.
  • Page 98: "On April 19, Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock wrote in a memorandum that the coin would be very hard to produce because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the design"
You've not sent page 98.
Sent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages 276-77: "The Commission of Fine Arts met, and, at the suggestion of sculptor-member Lorado Taft, decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser (no relation) as to who would be most suitable to turn the sketches into plaster models, from which the Mint could make coinage dies and hubs. Moore wrote to James Fraser on December 19, but as the recipient overlooked the matter, he did not respond until February 7, 1928. James Fraser suggested Peace dollar designer Anthony de Francisci, but Chester Beach was engaged instead"
This is accurate, though I'm not quite sure why the second sentence is needed. I mean, should I really care that James Fraser overlooked the matter, took a while to reply, and then suggested some dude who didn't get the job? Sentences one and three strike me as sufficient.
Agreed. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 278: "thus, his gaze is westward"
Yes, this is okay.

Page 98 checked & confirmed Singora (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that your wording (the greatest relief) and that in the source (the bulk of the relief) are unusual ways of referring to what is generally described as "depth". See relief for more info. I guess this is a numismatist thing.[reply]

Yes, relief is the common term in numismatics, taken from the artistic. Terminology is always an issue, though I don't think there's much ambiguity in numismatics that can't be cured with a link to glossary of numismatics, though I do not maintain that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF: To authorize coinage of silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of discovery of the Hawaiian Islands

  • 1. This is supposed to support "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support", but I'm only seeing the minutes of a meeting that took place on January 23. Am I doing something wrong here? Singora (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue after you've clarified this point. I'm sure I've got the right PDF for the source. You've named it: Hawaii house hearings.

Sorry, Singora. What it is, is the report on the bill, it is three pages long.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wehwalt -- I'll finish this over the weekend. I see now this open brackets u|Wehwalt close brackets triggers the "ping". Is there a limit on how many times you can (or should) ping someone? I've had more than half a dozen from the Old Pine Church article further down this list. It comes across as kind of desperate. Singora (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you feel is best as to your work, not being paid means no one can tell us what to do. Pinging usually works, I'm aware of no limits on it. Once or twice it hasn't worked terribly well, there's some discussion in my talk page archives about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've buggered this up. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Today I'll look at all refs for House Hearings. This is a 5-page PDF.
REF #1 (pages 2-5): "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was produced because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming the first European to reach the Hawaiian Islands, or, as it was termed then, its discovery. Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii[a] to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. It also asked the federal government to issue a half dollar and stamps in honor of the anniversary". Yep, this is a summary of the PDF.
REF #3 (page 1): "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint". I guess you could replace the second instance of Hawaii half dollar with coins. I'm seeing the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii, btw.
Sources seem to be careless on how they refer to the commission. I've adjusted it.--09:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
REF #9 (pages 1-3): "It was referred to the coinage committee, of which New Jersey Congressman Randolph Perkins was the chair, and which held hearings on the bill on January 23, 1928. Delegate Houston appeared in support of his bill, and to the surprise of committee members, had gotten a statement from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, stating that Mellon did not oppose the bill. Usually, when a commemorative coin was proposed, Mellon argued that a medal should be issued instead. This had been the case for the Norse-American medal three years previously; its sponsor, committee member Ole J. Kvale of Minnesota, had scuttled plans for a coin because of Treasury Department opposition. Congressman Kvale was very much interested in learning what powers of persuasion have been exercised by the gentleman from Hawaii to bring out a favorable report". This should read such a favorable report.
I don't see where that makes a difference and I tend to go with fewer words over longer.--Wehwalt (talk)
REF #10 (page 4): "Kvale, a Norse-American, asked, why this discrimination against two and a half million people in the United States has come about in favor of about 35,000 whites in that Territory?" This is good.
REF #11 (pages 3-4): "Houston stated he had not lobbied the Treasury for the coin, and Perkins, before promising to find out more information, speculated that perhaps it was because the coins were to be issued far from the continental United States. Houston told the committee that the coin was something that may be kept by those who attend the celebration as a memorial of it and will be available to foreigners who come there, as well as our own people who celebrate the occasion". This is all good
REF #12 (pages 4-5): "Kvale stated he would vote for the bill. Mississippi's Bill G. Lowrey noted that as he had said before, he would not vote for any coin bill; Perkins agreed that Lowrey had made his position clear". Possible error. Nothing about Lowrey on pages 4-5.

More later Singora (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. As for Rep. Lowrey, his comment is at the bottom of page 5, underneath Governor Farrington's letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Lowrey confirmed. The difference between "bring out a favorable report" and "bring out such a favorable report" is that your version is not what the guy is reported to have said. My understanding is that quotes need to be accurate. We had this issue earlier: you dropped the word "is". Singora (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (February 1, 1928)

  • REF #13: "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support". All good, though I wonder why you've not put in page numbers (1-3). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cover the whole thing, I felt it unneeded for a three-page report.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74

  • REF #14 (pages 3278–3279): "The bill was passed without objection by the House of Representatives on February 20, 1928". Your ref needs a plural for the page numbering. Dates are good. Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74 (March 2, 1928)

  • REF # 16 (page 3949): "The bill was passed by the Senate on March 2, 1928 without recorded opposition". This is okay. Again, you have inconsistencies re: page numbering (Page vs. p.). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the template that produces that. That's been, I assume, considered acceptable in prior FAs as it has passed without objection. Thank you for your comments. I've made some minor p vs pp changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another valuable coin. Only minor concerns:

Inception

  • "Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle, a civic-minded individual", - I noticed that the term "individual" might not be considered the politest.
  • "decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser", - I expected a name after "ask", but perhaps I am the only one.
I think its OK. It is a false title and appropriately rendered, in my view anyway. It is more compact to place it before the name.
fine if you say so, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany;", - afraid that "the one" is unclear, perhaps repeat "the statue"?
I changed it to sculpture. Open to ideas.
  • "The palm tree that rises above him is intended to signify romance." - how do we know that? I can't access the source, - is it given in the Slabaugh ref, somewhat later?
Yes, it is in Slabaugh. I can send you a copy if you want. It is from the description of the design, and I suspect he's borrowing from the Report of the Director of the Mint for 1928 or 1929.
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate the Latin motto?

That's it today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've done except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments and support.--09:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Prose review: I've read enough coin articles to consider myself, if not an expert, quite familiar with historic US coin issues. For one thing, the cast of producers, gainsayers and experts tends to be much the same (although in this case they seem to have avoided death or imprisonment). I'm giving it a fairly close reading, and here are my comments on the first half – largely suggestions and/or minor quibbles:

Lead
  • "Depicting Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse, only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." The different statements are unrelated, but are artificially connected by the gerund (?) "depicting". Something like: "It depicts Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse; only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." might resolve this.
  • Perhaps introduce Chester Beach as "Sculptor Chester Beach", otherwise he sounds more like a location.
  • The final "today" is indeterminate.
Inception
  • First line: "because of" → "as part of"? - and "of" rather than "for" in "for the 150th anniversary..."
  • I'd put "discovery" in quotes
I'm inclined to leave it as is. The phrasing is enough.
  • "Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779." Suggest: "Planners decided on a date in August 1928 for the celebrations, midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. "Sesquicentennial" should be linked.
  • I think I'dsplit this sentence: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations." Thus: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii giving the celebrations official status. The federal government was asked to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. The resolution also requested the federal government..." etc
  • "issue a half dollar and stamps" → "issue a half dollar coin and postage stamps"
  • "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint." Could this be simplified to: "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the authorized group."?
  • It's not normal in WP articles to add "Mrs." to names. Is there a special factor in this case?
That's how the source refers to her. It does not say much about her, so I did not feel inclined to remove info.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Gerda, I don't think "individual" is necessarily impolite, but something a bit more informative might be helpful.
The source is not informative on the point of Mrs. Castle beyond what I have written
  • The words "as to" in the final paragraph seem unnecessary.
Legislation
  • First line: "found it likely" → "thought it likely" (or even "considered"? "Found" does not seem right.
  • Maybe add "earlier" to the end of opening sentence?
  • "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation: that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance". The sentence is a bit too long, and I got a confused as to whether the wording after the colon related to Norbeck's report or Mellon's letter. It's probably fairly obvious, but a sentence break would make it clearer: "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment, and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation. Mellon stated that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance".

Second half to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I'm up to date. I have made the changes, though sometimes in my own words, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest, such as it is:

Preparation
  • No issues
Design
  • "his gaze is westward" – that rather depends on tour position when you're holding the coin.
Word "left" removed".
  • "was based" → "is based"?
  • The comma after "Kamehameha I of Hawaii" should go, to clarify that Gould was the sculptor of the statue, not the designer of the reverse.
  • "The sculpture that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii." Relevance?
The sources don't say which was used, so I'm covering both possible origins.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Production etc
  • "When the display coin was stolen..." You might clarify "When the display coin from this collection was stolen..." etc
  • "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection" – it would be helpful if you said, briefly, what this is, presumably a museum or permanent display of Cook-related artefacts or memorabilia.
It seems to be Native Hawaiian material, since that is what they deal with. I don't find anything obviously useful on the web to back up Mr. Flynn's assertion. I'll continue to research this as opportunity presents. I may email the museum as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design..." – not sure what "by design" means here. Isn't it just the scarcest commemorative half dollar?
No, some of the multiple date ones, including the Oregon Trail piece have lower mintages for a specific date and mintmark, but cumulatively there are more of that design. I haven't gotten to most of the multi-date series yet.

That's it – I'm rather scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Nicely done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My outstanding points will I am sure be easily disposed of, so I won't withhold support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I havent mentioned it, I've dealt with it. Re the barrel, no't nearly as I must ransack your work to find something to show I'm earning my keep, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments Singora (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) I don't have time to check the last PDF, but I doubt this'll be a problem. Am I allowed to Support on sourcing? The article is factually accurate, and I guess this is what counts.[reply]

You certainly can, and given the work you've done, it is very welcome. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I looked in earlier, but there was a lot going on and I have only now remembered to look in again. The article looks to me to meet the FA criteria and, not coincidentally, to meet the standard of previous articles in this remarkable series. It's wonderful how Wehwalt can make numismatics interesting even to those not much drawn to the topic. Another bullseye, I'd say. Tim riley talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for your kind words and for wading through this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.