Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jubilee coinage/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [1].

Jubilee coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the British coins issued for Victoria's Golden Jubilee, of which the double florin, recently promoted, was one. It lasted less than six years, but outlived its sculptor by two of them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
I've put a link on the image page to a 1901 book featuring it. It was probably published earlier, but that will suffice. here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image swapped and I've tweaked the lead sentence. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "by Joseph Boehm" — is his common name 'Joseph Edgar Boehm'? Same in the lead
I've seen it rendered "Joseph" or "Joseph Edgar" or even "Edgar". From the distance of 130 years, it's difficult to judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the presence of a small [...]pointed profile." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fremantle had revived some of the finest heraldic designs from the past". — the prose does not make clear where this quote is from. Same with "garnished Shield surmounted by the Royal Crown", "in a plain Shield surrounded by the Garter, bearing the Motto 'Honi soit qui mal y pense' and the Collar of the Garter"
I've clarified those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that "I think that " — It is rather an opinion of a person that the Ipswich Journal
Presumably, but the leader isn't signed. Presumably it's the proprietor's opinion. All of these are opinions, inserted to show what opinions the coins caused.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the storm of condemnation erupted [...] on the reverse." quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote, and so are various other quotations.
I've added a couple. I'm conservative about using block quotes since they break up the text and emphasize their contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry but I currently won't be able to give this a comprehensive review. But all my concerns were appropriately answered, and I didn't find any other obviously issues. I'm hesitant to fully support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I maybe can now:

  • In the lead, as we link 'sixpence', shouldn't we link 'fourpence' as well?
Link adjusted.
  • "the queen marked her sixtieth birthday" (lead) v. "approaching her 60th birthday" (Background section) — sixtieth v. 60th; consistency needed
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Henry Ponsonby" — I'm no expert, but if we are including the title 'Sir' for Ponsonby, shouldn't we doing same for Boehm, Edward Poynter, and others?
  • That just led me through a number of reference books, since our article on Ponsonby doesn't say when he was knighted (1878). So Ponsonby was knighted when first referred to, and is properly referred to. The others were knighted or created baronets (also entitled to be called Sir _____) after the first time they are referred to in the article (Boehm created baronet 1889, Fremantle knighted 1890, Brock knighted 1911, Poynter created baronet 1902, Evans knighted 1892. Lubbock was a baronet from 1865 to 1900, when he was given a peerage, similarly Leighton was given a peerage in 1896 after being created a baronet in 1878. So I think it's all properly done.
  • " "'in " — the single quote after the double quote starts but never ends. Do let me know if I am missing something obvious.
Single quote removed.
  • "and the veil would have been black in colour" — do we need to specify 'in colour'?
    No, but I think removing it leaves the end of the sentence a bit too abrupt. "Following the death of Albert, Prince Consort in 1861, she had remained in mourning, and the veil would have been black."
  • "the artist's initials JEB may be found on the truncation of her bust" (emphasis mine) — I'm not sure why there is 'may be'. The source says: "in small raised letters on the bust truncation, the artist's initials J.E.B. (Joseph Edgar Boehm); around, VICTORIA D:G: BRITT: REG: F:D:". Is that a British Eng thing?
It's just a turn of phrase I use. Changed to "are found"
  • Our article does not italicized 'The' in 'The Church Times'
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the new coins were released" — optional: "Soon after the new coins were released"
On balance, I prefer it as is.

That is it from me! Excellent article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • The lead says 1888 was the last issue for circulation of the groat, but in the body it appears a modified version was issued in 1891. I assume the difference is that the 1891 issue has the colony's name on so that isn't an issue for circulation in the UK, but apparently the 1888 issue was not for circulation in the UK either.
It was not intended to circulate in the UK, but as it did not differ from earlier groats but for the date, the proclamation making the earlier groats valid currency in the UK applied. The 1891 issue saying British Guiana had not been proclaimed valid currency in the UK. I've tried to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does "the last of its series" mean that the 1888 issue was the last time groats were struck that could circulate in the UK? I think that's the intent. If so, perhaps just cut the "Fourpence pieces with the colony of British Guiana's name on them were struck by the Royal Mint from 1891" sentence, as it's not about Jubilee coinage? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true and I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest introducing Ponsonby, perhaps as "and in February 1879 Sir Henry Ponsonby, the Queen's Private Secretary,...".
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " that the Austrian-born sculptor, Joseph Boehm, had been engaged": to my ear this would be better either without the commas or with "an" rather than "the". Or, perhaps better, move "Austrian-born sculptor" to the next sentence, where you're characterizing Boehm.
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we say Victoria "approved the revisions" in February 1880, do we know what these revisions were? The only suggestion given is Louise's comment that the crown should be larger; the resulting design appears to be the one used for the Afghanistan medal. If we know for sure that February 1880 was the point at which the crown was enlarged to fit Victoria's head we might as well say so.
    The source says "By the end of January the work had been seen by the queen's daughter, Princess Louise, and on 20 February the queen herself called on Boehm and saw the new models for the coinage. She approved the large crown suggested by Princess Louise but required a slight change to be made to the chin, for which Boehm was to be guided by a miniature by Sir Charles Ross." I've edited it to focus on the crown.
  • Somewhere in the article, I think we should have a straightforward list or table of the denominations that fall into the Jubilee coinage, with whatever the numismatically important information is for them -- quantity struck, years struck, mints if important. A table would allow a thumb image of the obverse and reverse of each denomination if images are available.
Working on this. I'll have to do some downloads and OTRS applications.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we have no pictures for the thumbs that's not going to prevent me supporting, but we should put in whatever we have access to. The main issue for me was that I couldn't tell at the end of the article what the list of Jubilee coinage denominations was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one. Most of them are permission pending and I've sent an OTRS email. Once it goes through, I'll ask Buidhe to update their image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Is the number of coins struck sufficiently encyclopedic information to include? I don't know if that's something you would expect to put in articles about coins for circulation; I recall seeing it in your articles about commemorative coins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem would be with the 1887 mintages. The Young Head coins continued to be struck for some portion of 1887, and I've checked two sources on mintages and they aren't broken down. The problem is especially acute for the sixpence of which three distinct varieties were struck. The same goes for the 1893 sixpences and threepences, two heads, no breakdown.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think it's OK to let the reader know when information is unavailable, if it's information they might think is merely omitted, but your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was fraudulently plated to pass as one": suggest "and was often" or "and was sometimes".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates covered at the start of the "Initial release" section overlap with the events at the end of the background section, and I found myself scrolling back and forth to see what was new information. Is the overlap necessary?
No. I've cut the brief first paragraph to the later section as basically duplicative.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was interested to see that "IND. IMP." was not allowed to be used on UK coinage. Not relevant for this article, but when and how was that changed? I recall seeing it on George VI's pennies.
I've added some detail on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

After more than three weeks this nomination has only garnered one general support. Unless there are signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just clocked this. I'll look in properly tomorrow, so pray put the the archiving on hold if that's OK. Tim riley talk 22:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim. I'll try to find another reviewer. I hope we have a few days?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll be supporting this, I have no doubt, but will indulge in one moderately important quibble and a few minor ones first. Before doing so, let me salute you, Wehwalt, for your perfect BrE: I'm not sure I could be quite so reliable in AmE.

My only substantial concern is your way of naming the sculptor. After he was made a baronet in 1889 the British newspapers of the period all referred to him as "Sir Edgar Boehm". Before that he was referred to as "Mr J. E. Boehm, sculptor in ordinary to the Queen", but I can't find any references to him as "Joseph Boehm", and I think he should be referred to in this article either as "Edgar Boehm" or "J. E. Boehm".

I've gone with how our article refers to him, Joseph Edgar Boehm.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My handful of petty cavils:

  • Capitalisation
  • I am well aware that anyone taking capitalisation seriously is likely to go mad, and I am not demanding any changes, but I'm blest if I can see why Deputy Master is capitalised (sometimes) and chancellor is not.
  • "The Coinage Act 1870 made the chancellor of the Exchequer the Master of the Mint ex officio, with the deputy master the actual head" – this footnote really is a right old milkshake of upper and lower case, surely?
  • capitalising the Court Circular is probably fair enough, but I'm not sure about the Committee on the Design of Coins.
I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS supports it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ribbon and Star of the Order of the Garter and the badge of the Order of the Crown" – seems a bit hard on the badge to make it the only noun in this half of the sentence without a capital letter.
  • Background and preparation
  • In the fourth para, the second sentence seems to me to confute itself: the unquivocal statement that Radnitzky had some of the work done by a student is contradicted after the semicolon by the statement that perhaps he didn't. A "reportedly" or some such in the first half or an "although" in the second would smooth things over.
  • Designs
  • In the last para, I imagine you mean that the figure 2 on the Maundy tuppence was in a different style from the old one, and if that is indeed what you mean, I think it would be clearer if you wrote "the Maundy twopence carried a different style figure 2"
  • Initial release
  • "The Birmingham Daily Post wrote on 24 June …" – Brian Boulton used to twit me in reviews for using this construction: he maintained that papers do not write themselves, and I daresay he was right. I just mention it.

That's my lot. I'll look in again with the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't responded, I just went ahead and did it. Thank you for the review and kind words. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. I find the article highly readable, thoroughly − and as far as I can judge authoritatively − sourced and cited, comprehensive, and of course magnificently illustrated. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I hesitate to disagree with Brian, whose company we once had the pleasure and privilege of having for a few hours, as you may recall. But given that there are a number of papers quoted, it would look very artificial to keep saying "a writer for" "a correspondent for" etc. Especially since what I am quoting may be an article the paper reprinted without giving credit, as they did do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/pass

[edit]

Placeholder. SN54129 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC) This version reviewed.[reply]

  • I understand (while not necessarily agreeing with) why you use country-wide locations, but it does mean I am forced to ask why "Oslo, Norway" and "Llantrisant, Wales", but not "London, UK"...?
It seems the most practical way of doing it. London is a major city and centre of publishing and there seems little risk of disambiguation Oslo is given its country because it is not known as a centre of publishing for English-language books.
  • Talking of locations, Robinson is lacking one.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess, in the bibliography, you haven't linked Coin News because we don't have an article. But that's not consistent with the approach you take in the refs section, where you link e.g., Sheffield Independent, albeit redlinked?
I've delinked the Sheffield in all cases.
It is now.
  • Why doesn't the Forrer cite (currently #14) use sfns like other {{Cite book}} refs?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the review. I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2022 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jubilee_coinage/archive1&oldid=1080388286"