Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coinage Act of 1965/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2017 [1].

Coinage Act of 1965[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the act that took the metal silver out of most US coins struck for circulation. The coin shortages of the 1960s are mostly forgotten today, but at the time, they affected commerce and everyday life. This act for the most part ended them (I'm old enough to remember the 1974 cent shortage). The price, of course, was the silver coins, which vanished from circulation around 1967. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to me to have the presumably slang "dime" take precedence over the official name in para 1

Dime is the actual name of the coin. The act refers to "a dime or ten-cent piece".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2 of lead has three "increasing/increased" in first two sentences
$.45 .7734 troy ounces etc. Why no leading zeroes?

In my experience, more usual not to have them.==Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

were being processed and cleaned —"being" looks redundant
representing the bulk of what the Fed shipped— the subject of this is "Coins", but so detached that probably better in new sentence.
Inconsistent numbers, eg 26 million, 45,000,000
"exportation" is this a word?

It's in the law, but I've changed it to "export".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the reason that the clad coins worked in vending machines is because they had the same weight as well as size, but that's unstated, can you clarify?

They don't actually, they have the same electrical properties as the silver coins. I'll make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught everything (if I haven't replied, I've gone ahead). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm happy with the changes although the "missing" leading zeroes still look odd to me. Maybe it's a BE/AE thing? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I think it is as you say, something like $0.98 looks odder to me than $.98.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 [Includes image review][edit]

Images appropriately licensed
No DABs, external links OK
Some duplicate links in the Title II section

Coinage Act of 1873 and San Francisco Mint. Been a while since we mentioned them, both before the long legislative section. Inclined to keep things as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted by the 89th United States Congress Capitalize The in the infobox

That's generated by the template. I hate to mess with that,.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reiterates language found in the Act of May 12, 1933,[a] a provision repealed in section 210 to avoid possible legal arguments that section 102 does other than restate existing law. Section 210 repealed the part of the 1933 act or of Section 102 of this law? It's answered later, but needs clarification here.
Need a comma between city and state in the sources.

City followed by state postal abbreviation without comma is what the post office recommends and I've come to use that because it is defensible.

Be consistent if using state in place of publication.
Nicely done. Didn't see anything else. Will make another pass later to see if anything else catches my attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. If I haven't commented, I've gone ahead.

Just one more thing: Hyphenate copper nickel--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

No spotcheck:

All of the sources are properly formatted and seem reliable. There are a few that don't have wiki-links but that does not point to unreliability. No dead links. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties...

I copyedited a bit so pls let me know any concerns there, just a few other things (two being minor style points) I wanted to raise:
- I notice the vote scores use long dashes but I would've thought short dashes appropriate -- something I missed in MOS?
- I thought it was more common to put See also before Notes.
- The mix of tenses in Provisions jars a bit for me. I get using present tense to describe the provisions if the legislation is still in place, and I can see the reason for using past tense to comment on the provisions, but I wonder if we could separate them more. For instance in Title I, perhaps we could leave the first para as is (present tense), and then split the second para at "According to the Senate committee report on the bill, section 104 was intended..." (where it switches to past tense) and then split again at "Section 105 authorizes the secretary..." (where it switches back to present tense). In Title II I think it's pretty good as is but perhaps split the last para at "Section 207 repeals..." Similarly perhaps split Title III at "Section 304 appropriates..." That's just what comes to mind for me, there might be other options...
Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
I checked image licensing before I noticed Sturm had done so along with his source review -- no concerns.

Good work as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On consideration and checking previous articles, I've put things in past tense. I've done a couple of paragraph breaks more or less as you suggested. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I picked up a couple of things that still needed to be made past tense -- all looks okay to me now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the edits and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No prob -- not that it affects my support but did you have any thoughts on my first two (style) points? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that long dashes are used for scores. See Disco Demolition Night for example, and I did the same thing in Coinage Act of 1873. I'm easy on this but prefer to be consistent. I've moved the see also, sorry for the oversight.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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