This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
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
A fact from Penny (New Zealand pre-decimal coin) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a design for the 1930s New Zealand penny depicted a rugby player?
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.
@Sohom Datta and Generalissima: I am not sure our article states the hook fact, in particular the bit about 1930s. I think 1930s is mentioned in the proceeding paragraph but it needs to be together. From DYKCRIT in a nutshell The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in. We should put the hook together in a sentence followed by the citation in our article? Bruxton (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima and Bruxton: I wonder if we can just reword the hook ? Something like:
would satisfy DYKCRIT (and was actually how I interpreted the hook). That being said, I will keep DYKCRIT's nutshell's strict wording in mind for future reviews. Sohom (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: It is definitely cited and in the article.
Francis Shurrock, a local sculptor and art teacher, submitted multiple designs. One penny design showed a Māori tekoteko figurine[b], with the other featuring a fern and a triumphant rugby player holding a ball.[4]
and if you specifically want the fact that the coin was released in the 1930s
High Commissioner Bill Jordan approved the design in June 1939, and the coin entered production.[4]
My understanding of DYKCRIT is that the exact wording does not have to be used. However the fact mentioned must be present. Sohom (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the messages. For such a short hook I should not have piece together hook facts from different areas of the article. I will leave this to another promotor. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta and Generalissima: I am sorry that the nomination has been idle almost a month without action so I will promote the hook and leave notes for the promoting administrator:
In the Design and introduction section 1938 is mentioned as the year a committee was formed to accept designs.
In the Design proposals section the 2nd paragraph contains the Rugby design fact,
in the fourth paragraph of that section is the 1939 design approval.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Generalissima! I'll take this review as I have a bit of an interest in numismatics. My general method in GA reviews is to use a large list (see Talk:A-flat clarinet/GA1); please indent under each point to answer and use this section for comments on the review itself. Expect first comments within a couple of days. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me]01:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, that's my review finished now. Not much to deal with, just a few points. I'm putting the review on hold for now: due to the holidays I'll set a time limit of 10 days (until 5 January in the new year), which should be plenty of time. Thanks for this great article, was fun to review. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me]01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some important information from §Design and introduction could be included in the lede, e.g. design competition, winning design - S
Noting the use of redlinks here: could you clarify that the biographies would be likely to meet notability standards? Also, I'm uncertain on the rather opaque link to Tokens of New Zealand. Is this an intended future project? - S
Oh, yes. It would be specifically about pennies and halfpenny tokens which formed the primary bronze coins in circulation for much of the 19th century, so I figure it would be a useful article to eventually write. A better name might restrict it from like, gaming tokens. As for biographies, Jenkin is given a biography in a Concise Dictionary of New Zealand Artists and referenced in various histories of art in New Zealand, so I feel he is notable. Cornwall Mitchell has various coverage in the New Zealand Numismatic Journal, a short bio from the National Library of New Zealand, and is covered by the book Mitchell & Mitchell : a father & son arts legacy, published by Potton & Burton. - G
Usual laundry list of copyedits follows:
§Lede
The New Zealand penny is a large one-cent bronze coin issued...: shouldn't this be "was" since the coinage is not used any more? - S
From what I can tell looking at coin FAs, the standard is to use present tense, since the coins still physically exist. They just are no longer tender.
In 1936 the New Zealand Numismatic Society, often serving as an advisory body to the national government on coinage issues, began...: "which often served as an advisory body" seems less awkward to me - S
Wikilink Royal Mint for people unfamiliar with subject matter - S
Please use sfn or rp for journal articles to aid verifiability - S
There are still some journal articles and books with large page ranges that could be more specific, Hargreaves (1972) would benefit from the sfn treatment as well - S
Fixed. - G
Could "Mar 2003" be made "March 2003", or is this on purpose? - S
Fixed - G
A few citation parameters appear to be missing from book cites: (not GACR, but for uniformity this would be good):
Familton & McLintock (1966) is missing a title link, publisher, and place (OCLC1014037525). An author link for McLintock might also be nice - S
Cuhaj (2014) needs an ISBN, publisher, and place (OCLC848049219) - S
Infobox statements that don't appear in text trouble me. Per MOS:INFOBOXREF, please consider including these (with references) in text or at least add references to the infobox - S
Fixed. - G
References are needed in the footnotes please - S
Ope, fixed. - G
Earwig's flags no copyvios - S
Source spotchecks (half of the eight sources):
Ref 1 (Ken 2003) is a pass for copyvio and verifiability - S
Ref 2 (Familton & McLintock 1966) is a pass for copyvio and verifiability - S
Ref 5 (Stocker 1998) is a pass for copyvio and verifiability - S
Ref 6 (Stocker 2010) is a pass for copyvio and verifiability - S
I was concerned when I saw that the only comparable existing GA (Penny (British decimal coin)) was twice the size, but after looking at the comparable availability of references and my own search for other sources I am satisfied in its usage of all major sources. I will assess coverage based on these sources during spotchecks. Update: I'm satisfied with the level of coverage after spotchecks - S
Article remains focussed on the topic throughout - S
All images tagged with appropriate licenses, verification shows that these are all correct. I took the liberty to add a more specific source to the 1940 proofs - S
Images are pertinent to subject matter and use appropriate captions. Alt text is a nice bonus for accessibility - S
Overall: A nice article with not much to correct until it meets the criteria fully - S
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.