Talk:Key date

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2022. The result of the discussion was soft delete.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Bruxton talk 05:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that for coin collectors, key date coins are usually the rarest in a series? Source: Key Date coins are defined as the handful of rarest coins for any given series.
- ALT1: ... that key dates are valued by collectors because they are needed to complete coin sets? Source: Keys have value mostly because they are needed to complete sets.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Brown (American football)

5x expanded by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Key date; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article appears to meet all the criteria. Hooks are cited and look alright. QPQ done. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton, BeanieFan11, and Cielquiparle: Sorry, shouldn't've clicked rollback, but hook is currently sourced to a fully unreliable source – the coinweek.com piece is an ad with a "coin week is not responsible for this content" disclaimer. So, we'll need another source. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I really do not understand because I do not see that, but this is an expert in coins. He is from a coin certification servce: NGC. Coinweek seems a more acceptable source than a private company: NGC. Bruxton (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Below the coinweek.com piece, you'll find an ad for NGC. Below that, you'll find a link where you can submit content, and below that, you'll find a warning that coinweek.com does not fact-check or exercise editorial oversight on any of the claims. Is Jeff Garrett an SMX in the "published author in reputable sources" sense? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Not sure how to proceed. Trade publications are all there is for RS in relation to coins. Jeff Garrett is considered to be an expert in U.S. coins. The reference is not citing anything contentious. Bruxton (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett is a past president of the Professional Numismatists Guild and the American Numismatists Association, and author of the Encyclopedia of United States Gold Coins...but since he specifically submitted the article in question on behalf of the Numismatists Guaranty Corporation, it is better to remove the article as a source from the article. (In the meantime, I have already replaced his article as the source for the non-controversial definition of the term...but that article still needs to be replaced as a source for the Lincoln penny. I am seeing it in various U.S. Coin Encylopedias, etc., but I need to go to work now. Bye.) cc: User:Bruxton Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources which repeat this but here is CNBC Rarest in the series. Bruxton (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought...reading more about the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation, they are a certification service. Surely that's a few steps above an actual dealer (in terms of reliability as a source). So maybe it's ok to leave Garrett as a source within the article but I'm not sure about some of the other sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence as always @Cielquiparle:. The hook was already sourced to CNBC in the article, and the key date rarity claim is supported by many other references but sadly it was pulled from the prep. My fault for offering the Garrett reference instead of others. The nomination is likely to flounder after being pulled and dealing with it will waste valuable editor time so I will withdraw the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]