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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 [1].

---

Norse-American medal[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a medal that was authorized by Congress and sold to the public for the Norse-American centennial of 1925. Although it is not a coin, it was often collected as if it were one (less so today than in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was much broader interest in medals than there is now in the US. The brainchild of Congressman Ole Juulson Kvale, a Norse-American (surprise, surprise), the medal and the celebrations it was a part of accomplished the difficult task of showing both ethnic pride and assimilation. And, I must admit, as an experienced cruiser, when I read of the voyage of the Restauration (Restoration, not restaurant) all I could think was "party cruise"! Skal!Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB[edit]

This looks like the usual professional job, with an original slant. I've not had the opportunity to review it during preparation, and after a careful reading I have a few mostly minor quibbles:

• "Only 53 of the ones in gold were issued" → "Only 53 were issued in gold..."?
• "They are sometimes collected as part of the commemorative coin series": Does "they" refer to the whole series, or just to the silver and bronze?
• Ole Juulson Kvale: I thought we didn't give birth and death years for linked persons?
• The comma after "and in January 1925," seems like one too many
• I'm unsure about "accordingly" as a paragraph intro - in accordance with what? The sentence reads equally well without it.
• "Kvale noted..." etc – this seems more like a declaration that something which he "noted". "Evale declared..."?
• "but then on the 6th,..." Suggest delete "then" and comma after "6th"

I split the sentence instead.

• The statement in the second para of the Background section: "Commemorative coins for ethnic heritage groups were unlikely to pass Congress at that time due to..." etc does not seem to be borne out in the legistlative history. The bill seems to have gone through without a murmer.

But it wasn't a coin. It was a medal. Kvale toned it down, eliminated Treasury opposition, and apparently squared his colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way was Borgium "busy on Stone Mountain"?

I've added a small bit but I don't want to get into that one! I think the links will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Design section: Primarily this deals with the medal design, but in the third paragraph we suddenly have "one of the stamps..." The issue of commemorative stamps is mentioned in the Background section, which is fair enough, but having the stamp images dominating this section is somewhat confusing. It's arguable whether we need these images; if we do, there should be at least a bit more information in the text and/or caption. For example, for the benefit of the nautically challenged, a caption should distinguish the Restauration from the Viking ship. You could also expand the text a little, to remind readers that a stamp issue was an extra factor in the commemoration.

We don't have a heck of a lot of images, so I included them. Fraser did do sketches, but they are not yet PD. I've played with the caption. Regrettably Shultz only goes so far in treating the medal separately.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "There was a sales limit of one per person," – doesn't that nullify the opinion expressed earlier, about wanting collectors to buy two medals?

That is a fair point, but not addressed by the sources. I'm not sure if they could repurchase. Sources are a bit thin here and I haven't been able to find any primary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "A total of 47 gold pieces were..." It's was, unless you delete "A total of"

Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (aside) I wonder if Coolidge wore a Viking helmet at the celebration? He was known to do such things.

God only knows. I have Coolidge third or fourth on my list. There's one image on the Library of Congress website showing him going and one showing him returning. Regrettably they do not seem copyright-free but both show him bareheaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "publicity people" → "publicists"?

Doubtless they were but it's an acceptable phrase in AmEng and it conveys the proper tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, looks eminently supportable. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I think I've caught everything. Sorry for the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks for your responses. Ready to go I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the support. Glad to know "ready to go"! Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

• "He concludes that Kvale would not have supported such a depiction, "he was interested in pure romanticization. he saw a Viking ship and his chieftain in full regalia"." The lower case "he" in the last sentence here should be addressed, but should it be capitalised or is the full stop not meant to one?
  • Inserting: I made an edit on this one before I saw this note. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a comma. Dank's edit addresses it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The ((CSS image crop)) template has a parameter for alt text, so this should ideally be used in the infobox images. Ditto for the multiple image template used for the stamps.
• One instance of the all caps depiction of the inscriptions ("authorized by...") encloses it in quotes, the other ("Opus Fraser") does not; is this intentional?

It wasn't. Thanks. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall this one seems pretty straightforward, another quality (exo)numismatic article that I'm leaning towards supporting. GRAPPLE ^X 10:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X Sorry to be so slow. I've done as you've asked. As you've looked at the images, are you in a position to do an image review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly try. Though I will say I'm happy with the changes made based on the comments already. I'll get looking at the images now. GRAPPLE ^X 09:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there are only three, and all with the same OTRS license, it strikes me that it might be a good way to get started in doing image reviews, every FAC needs and everyone likes to see and is grateful for.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I assume I understand the licensing on File:1925 Medal Norse Gold commemorative.jpg correctly (design: public domain, this particular image: released by Heritage Auctions and verified by an OTRS ticket), in which case its use is perfectly fine. Both File:Norse American Centennial Sloop 1925 Issue-2c.jpg and File:Norse American Centennial Viking 1925 Issue-5c.jpg appear to be completely fine, PD for both. GRAPPLE ^X 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the changes made earlier and what I hope suffices for an image review, I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very grateful for the review and image review and am sorry for being so slow to get back to you. Things keep dropping off my watchlist. It's very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Feel free to revert them, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• I think that Fraser interpreted "breastplate" a bit too literally in his design. Earlier commenters appear to have caught all of the various infelicties; I see no issues other than that of the design itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not much I can do about that now :) ... many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• The one cite of Blegen that I could access was fine and AGF assumed for all the ones that I couldn't or weren't online.
• The biggest problem was that many sources were locked behind paywalls and need to be marked as such. Like all of the Congressional Record cites.
• Cite 19 resolved just fine, but cite 20 needed the session number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put in which session number manually as that template doesn't seem to allow for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (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.Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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