Talk:Columbian half dollar

Article

I added some better references and what information I could find, but I don't have many resources for this issue. This could be a really good article with some more information.-RHM22 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. Hope you are well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the excellent work you've done here. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that this is the most thorough history of the Columbian half dollar on the internet.-RHM22 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the most updated. A lot of sources have vague statements about how the design came to be, without much detail. Moran is the first guy who seems to have sat down with the National Archives. Thanks on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Columbian half dollar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Will review soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Great!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

review

lede

• "Faced with financial difficulties, organizers of the Columbian Exposition sought federal money to complete construction of the fair." - second paragraph in lede -

• shouldn't it start out with something like "The origination of the coin was a result of the financial difficulties face by the organizers of the Columbian Exposition" or in some way relating the coin immediately with the Columbian Exposition's financial difficulties - for the readers sake, since the coin is not mentioned until halfway through the second paragraph
• "Fair official James Ellsworth wanted the new coin to be based on a 16th century painting he owned by Lorenzo Lotto, reputedly of Columbus, and pressed for this through the design process." - "pressed for" > pushed for? pressured for?, "through" > throughout?

• "A total of five million half dollars were struck, far beyond the actual demand, and half of them were melted" - Does this use of "melted" mean that have ore allocated to make it was not melted in order to mint it? Or that the after the coins were minted, half were melted back to the ore?

They were melted, and the metal was then used for coins (almost certainly dimes, quarters, and half dollars) I've fixed the other things--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exposition

Why is this section so long, since it really has nothing to do with the coin, other than being the reason for it being minted. And there is already a whole article World's Columbian Exposition. All this detail seem off topic to me. Perhaps you could pick out any part that actually relates to the coin. e.g. whatever that's in the lede from this section.

I've cut it by half. I think it necessary to establish that there was a huge undertaking going on, thus leading into the shortage of money and also introduce the fair and the company who ran it. If I explained it as it came up, it would distract the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Release

In the quote, don't understand this: "Every line was sharply defined, and the strong features of the discoverer of America, which adorn the coin, seemed to look approvingly on the work."

It is saying that the coin was sharply struck, so that all the details were brought out. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Columbian half dollar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

I am passing this article. Here are my two nitpicks:

• "of organizers of the Columbian Exposition to gain" - how about "Columbian Exposition organizers" to avoid the many "of"s?
• "Company's Committee on Liberal Arts" - maybe define "liberal arts" --Tomcat (7) 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see those, will do. A link rather than a def for the second one.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)