Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half sovereign/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 July 2023 [1].

Half sovereign

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Platonist Rainbow (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the less prominent sister of the famous sovereign coin. I'm naming as conom Platonist Rainbow who did considerable work on the article but who hasn't edited since 2020. Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit

Coming soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK
  • I think it is worth adding reign templates for all monarchs mentioned. I see it has been slightly done with "Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509)"; it would be nice for all monarchs to have such information using this template: "Henry VII (r. 1485–1509)"
For the most part, done. Victoria's reign is expressed in prose and I've left it that way.
  • Add ALT text to all images.
OK.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Henry's third coinage...": What is meant by "third coinage"? Do you mean something like a third coinage reform?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put Henricus Rex in a Latin language template?
It hardly seems worth it for one word and one pseudo-Latin name--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...beginning in 1603. and features a...": punctuation error here.
  • Why are File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (obverse) - 1969.174.a - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg and File:England, Henry VIII, 1509-1547 - Half Sovereign (reverse) - 1969.174.b - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg not on the same level?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Henry VIII half sovereign" would be better as "half sovereign of Henry VIII" or "half sovereign issued during the reign of Henry VIII".
Numismatic practice is to put the name of the monarch first, perhaps slightly modified in the case of Victoria to Victorian.
  • "During the Napoleonic wars, large amounts of gold had left Britain...": Why the "had"? And why did they leave? If it was to fund the war, I would just say so.
It isn't that simple, there were multiple financial and monetary problems, (and yes, Wellington's army in Spain did have to get paid, but that was only one issue). I'd rather just leave it at that.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1817 half sovereign": under which monarch?
OK--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Clancy's excerpt not in quotation marks?
My experience is you don't do that for block quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sydney Mint half sovereign, 1856": it depicts which monarch?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the first half sovereigns of Victoria's reign...": You can just say "her" instead of "Victoria".
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. I will support this nomination, then. Good work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Three tiny quibbles while I'm here, but nothing to affect my support:

  • "The reason few gold coins were issued in 1819 was because of a proposal..." – when I was a schoolboy it was drilled into me that one doesn't write "the reason is because...", but "the reason is that...". If I were writing this sentence (which of course I'm not) I'd trim it to "Few gold coins were issued in 1819 because of a proposal..."
  • "1825 coins with an engraving by Wyon, based on a work by Sir Francis Chantrey" – the latter was yet to be knighted at the time. I'd leave out the "Sir" here.
  • "Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 and ruled until 1901" – "reigned", perhaps, rather than "ruled".

That's my lot. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got those. Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Courcelles

edit
  • My numismatic quibble was that the Royal Mint is not the only modern issuer of half-sovereigns, Perth has also issued a few lately, as have some Crown Dependencies, but unlike Perth those are not likely to be of note.
I think I'll rely on WP:PRITOP. While there are other half sovereigns, this is undoubtedly the primary topic. The others may be notable for a parenthetical-titled article, or maybe not. Most likely candidate would be, as you suggest Half sovereign (Australian coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually suggesting it was worth a sentence that Perth has issued modern collector halves, not a separate article. (Similar to how you mention the modern I-mint marked ones.) Courcelles (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added, though the India ones are different because they are legal tender in the UK. I will clarify that a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Coronation year" have "Coronation" capitalized? I see one where it isn't and two where it is.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding the paragraph about the Sydney issues being different from 1855 to 1871 rather clunky. This could likely be rewritten. Also, I'm away from home right now so I can't look it up myseld... did Sydney strike any half-sovereigns in 1867-1870? I know I've seen a full Sovereign of 1867. (And, finally, were the dies used in the laurel design from 1855-1866 also made in London? The way it reads now is a bit ambiguous in that point.)
I've rewritten. No half sovereigns were struck with those dates. The only date skipped in the full sovereign series was 1869 at Sydney.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Pretoria first make halfves? I know they were all George V, but was it only the three years?
Clarified that it was only those years.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost certain Ottawa (C mint mark) only made full Sovs, making them the only branch mint never to make halves, now that I mint marked halves exist in modern day. Not sure this is worth a mention or not.
I've added more about the Canada situation, but I can't find anything along the lines of what you suggest in sources and it feels a little synthy to put together pages to show that it is true so I'll pass on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I like the way you've done it, mentioning Ottawa made full Sovs but never halves. Courcelles (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

As usual, Commons make a simple task complicated.

  • File:OBVERSE GEORGE V, 1915 Sydney. Uncirculated.jpg, File:REVERSE GEORGE V, 1915 Sydney. Uncirculated.jpg PD subject. "The photograph is from the family business and may be used with appropriate attribution". Maybe this is covered by OTRS ticket #2020120310002502? Or #2015012110018886? I am not an admin, so I don't have the access to check. Back to you Wehwalt. If it is, add the ticket to the image!
    I am neither a Commons admin nor an OTRS volunteer so I can't check it. Finding the other half sovereigns that would suit the infobox to have somewhat dodgy copyrights I can't put right, I've taken photographs of a 1907 half sovereign and put them in the infobox. Since it isn't the most photogenic coin, I've also applied for OTRS permission on images of a 1983 half sovereign from Heritage Auctions, since we have a permission registered with OTRS to use their stuff. I will put them in once it comes through, but the 1907 will work for purposes of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • There's some inconsistency in the use of the serial comma (the third the harp of Ireland, and the fleurs-de-lis versus Scotland, Ireland and France): your call as to which to use, but it should be consistent throughout.
  • You should also be consistent in the use of brackets or commas in section titles: 1. English coin (1544–1604); 2. British coin (1817 to present). 3. British coin (1817 to present); 4. 1820–1837; 5. Victoria, 1837–1901; 6. 1902–1953; 7. Collector and bullion coin (since 1980)
Origin
  • There's a slight jar to "During the Napoleonic wars" (plural) and "After the war" (singular). You could either go with "After the wars" or "After the Battle of Waterloo (1815) ..."
  • "Almost every speaker": I presume the speakers in the debate, but that's not too clear
  • "the famous design": I'd try to avoid "famous" – it's one of 'those' words that is often a bit dubious.
  • Two uses of "However" (one here, one in the lead), both at the beginning of sentences: it's another of 'those' words, and certainly isn't needed in the Origin section.
1820–1837
  • Link "dies" to Coin die?
  • I'm slightly confused by the statement that "Half sovereigns were not issued as a currency piece during the reign of William IV", but then there are some details of some issues, and an image of a 1835 release (not mentioned in the text). You may need to clarify this for those of us who are hard of understanding

That's my lot. An interesting piece that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews and kind words. I think I've done everything. Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

edit
  • "He introduced the sovereign gold coin in 1489, which he valued at twenty shillings." -- I might reorganzie the sentence so that it is "In 1489.... sovereign gold coin, which he valued at twenty shillings."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original half sovereign was first introduced" -- I might remove "original" or "first". One is enough to distinguish it from those that followed.
Rephrased generally along those lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford comma is used with ", and the fleurs-de-lis of France in the fourth quarter" but not with "ten shillings, twenty shillings, two pounds and five pounds". There may be other instances of inconsistency.
No, that was the sole instance pointed out by a reviewer above. I defended it then but since multiple reviewers feel this is an issue, I've rephrased the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none dated 1819, a year in which few sovereigns were struck" -- Do the sources mention if these coins were dated 1818 or 1820?
Are you talking about half sovereigns or sovereigns? The 1819-dated sovereign exists. The 1819-dated half sovereign does not. Certainly, we're in an era where die production is expensive enough that old dies would be continued in use and used up in the new year, but this isn't one of those situations, like the continued production of 1967-dated predecimal coinage past that year, where the clock was intentionally stopped.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came to the throne" This is British vernacular, I'm assuming.
I hope so. I'm not British. But reviewers I know to be British haven't said anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the second set of images of the Victorian half sovereigns the design with the crown deemed undersized? If so, I might mention that in the caption.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proof, but from 2000, were" -- I might put a comma before "from" but that could simply be a personal stylistic choice.
I think that would be too many commas right there and the reader doesn't need it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Well written. ~ HAL333 15:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All done, or at least responded to, with the 1819 matter questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's no issue. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • I don't see alt text for the infobox images. Am I missing something?
Since the design is described as a caption, I don't think alt text would be necessary and there is in fact no provision that I can see for it in template:infobox coin.
I cut the ryal succession box.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Sources are all reliable. Links all work.

  • You have "London, England" as the publisher location for Bull (2023); I would make it just "London" as you've done with the other sources with that location.
  • Suggest using "2nd" rather than "second" for Clancy (2017), for consistency with Lobel, Spink, and Cross.
  • For Churchill (1906) you have "ii" for the volume, but the source PDF shows "II".

-- That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those things are done. Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Half_sovereign/archive1&oldid=1163280929"