Talk:Penny Penates/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 05:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

First read

Infobox Little of what is in the infobox is in the body of the article. Name? Yes. Artist? Only his last name. Year? Yes. Type? Not even in the lead. Medium? Ditto. Location? Not the guy's name.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Lead The link to British Philatelic Association is piped below, but displays here as a red link.  Done - According to User:Philafrenzy BPS not associated with the ABPS as far as I can see having checked both websites and is the reason for new article British Philatelic Association. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Design Remarkably, the first paragraph manages to say absolutely nothing about the postcard's design. The first sentence is about the stamp on the postcard. The second sentence is a definition. The third sentence describes the intent of the postcard. The fourth sentence is a redundant gloss of the third sentence. And the fifth sentence adds only that it was a practical joke—again, nothing about the design.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC) The section should be refocused on the physical appearance of the postcard: something like "The Penny Penates postcard is made of [material] and measures x by y. The coloured drawing on the face of the postcard shows [information that's currently in the second paragraph]. [Second paragraph:] The back bears the inscription [description]; a Penny Black stamp is affixed to the top right as postage. A circular postmark underneath the inscription [description]."  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Significance This section is currently a combination of factual history, and interpretative significance. It should really be split into two sections: "History" and "Significance". The former section can cover the posting of the postcard, Hook's intent, and the rediscovery and auction; the latter can cover the information about the postcard being the oldest, and the belief about the invention of postcards.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Other The commons category name has a typo.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Design

• The Penny Penates postcard is made of card stock. — What's the source for this?

 Done - reworded to show it was done on a piece of paper, not card stock. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• What's the source for the drawing being done in watercolor?

 Done - reworded to show it was a color drawing, as I don't find a source if it was a watercolor or oil based paint. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The scribes are tallying in ledgers the postage paid by mail going through the post office. — What's the source for this?

 Done - removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The back bears the Fulham postmark — Ditto. As far as I can tell, the word "Fulham" is part of the address, not part of the postmark.

 Done - you are correct = its the address. Corrected. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• to poke fun at them as guardians of the postal system — What's the source for the italicized part?

 Done - dropped as guardians of the postal system. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The second through fourth sentences in the second paragraph can be easily combined.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hook hand-made the coloured — Hook hasn't been introduced yet—I would just say that "The card was intended to" or something along those lines.

 Done - reworded. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

History

• This section should introduce Theodore Hook, who is otherwise mentioned only by last name in the body of the article. It should also mention that he probably sent the postcard to himself.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The winning bid was made by telephone by a postcard collector — May as well add his name.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The postcard with its stamp has been verified by the British Philatelic Association's expert committee as being genuine and the world's oldest. — This belongs in "Significance".

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Significance

• In 2001 an expert discovered the postcard in a stamp collection and, putting together the sequence of historical events, realised that it had been made and mailed by Hook — Conversely, this belongs in "History". The two sentences could probably just be swapped.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Penny Penates is also the only known postcard with a Penny Black stamp — When were such stamps issued?

 Done - 1 May 1840 --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When did they stop being issued? And in any event, what's your source for this? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking this information off the article on Penny Black. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The existence of a citation for a fact in one article doesn't mean that another article with the same fact does not need a citation. Also, you haven't addressed my earlier question, "When did they stop being issued?" --Usernameunique (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I must admit. You have me stumped as to what you are looking for. If it's - The postcard with its stamp has been verified by the British Philatelic Association's expert committee as being genuine and the world's oldest. = then it is referenced by [8] and [14]. I have no idea when the Penny Black stamps were stopped being issued. Is that relevant to the article? Which sentence are you looking for that needs a reference? I am puzzled. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The addition of citation 15 works for the date of Penny Black issue. But when did the Penny Black stop being issued? It matters, because presumably it stopped being issued before postcards became widely used—which would explain why the Penny Penates is the only known postcard with a Penny Black stamp. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Expanded on when and why the Penny Black stamp was discontinued a year later. Will that work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Now we just have the lingering comment below (see "Highlighting this comment, which has not been addressed"). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• Lake 2002: Is there a link to this? The author generally appears first in a citation; this would be fixed by using an appropriate citation template.

• @Usernameunique: - I am puzzled on this Lake 2002 source. I'll be glad to use the appropriate citation template IF I knew which source you are talking about. Give me some more hints and I'll fix it. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• The 2002 source that's written by an author whose last name is Lake. I.e., source #14. —Usernameunique (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now I see which ref you are talking about. It was put in by another editor (which I spotted right away, since it was not my style of writing) and it was not a necessary reference, so I removed it. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Philafrenzy, I see you're the one who added this. Do you have access to the source, and does it have anything that you think is either missing from the article, or worth adding? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Osborn 2009: This source suggests some context is missing from the article, probably best placed in "Significance". Namely, a rule that was in place until 1897 meant that people could not write on the address side of cards, and when it ended, photo postcards became a thing. Likely a few more sources can be found about this (including what the exact rule was).

• @Usernameunique: - Same here on the Osborn 2009 source. I am puzzled as to what you are requesting. I don't see the historical significance of a 1897 rule about not writing on the address side of postcards as related to the Hook 1840 postcard and its genuineness. Need some more hints as to what you are looking for. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• It sounds as if the rule preventing people from including messages on the same sides as the address effectively prevented postcards (which typically have an image on one side, and an address and message on the other) from entering common usage—so it helps to explain why postcards were not commonly used until after the rule was eliminated. —Usernameunique (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• O.K. I see what you are saying. However this type of information is already in the article on postcard. The information has no bearing and no significance as to the genuineness of Hook's postcard, being the world's oldest. It's more along the line of trivia and is already in the postcard article. Does that help. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps not in a direct sense, but it helps to explain a) why postcards were not used until well after Hook's card, b) why Hook's card had no message on it, and c) that Hook was skirting a line by placing only an address on the back, which adds some depth to his practical joke. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highlighting this comment, which has not been addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: Added a paragraph on the history of the tradition. Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Doug Coldwell, the main issue with this article is structure: information is tossed around, repeated, or omitted, without any clear order beyond two sections—"Design" and "Significance"—which aren't even followed. Thankfully, the article is short and the subject matter narrow, so reworking it shouldn't be too much of a chore. I'll take a deeper look once you've had a crack at it. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look at it. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Presently it's on the main page as a Did You Know. = It had 9,271 views for April 26. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look at it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look at it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doug Coldwell, I'll try to respond shortly—have been a bit tied up lately, but should be able to look this weekend if not earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doug Coldwell, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: All additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look at it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Usernameunique: All additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look at it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doug Coldwell, there are two unaddressed issues above. I have added additional comments under them to make them clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)