Talk:Penny (New Zealand pre-decimal coin)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Schminnte (talk · contribs) 01:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~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.

§Background
~~Silver coinage might be a nice wikilink - S~~
Added!

§Design and introduction
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~~

~~Wikilink Greenstone - S~~

~~Per MOS:LANG, for accessibility please use {{lang}} for italicising foreign terms - S~~
Made changes as requested.

§Mintage and production
~~Wikilink decimalisation to this subsection - S~~
Done!
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
All sources used appear to be RSes - 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 (OCLC 1014037525). An author link for McLintock might also be nice - S~~

Hargreaves (1972) would benefit from a link to John McIndoe (printer) - S
John McIndoe died in the 1910s; his publishing house which presumably published Beads and Banknotes would just be a red link. - G
My bad, the printer around that time would be the son, John McIndoe (artist) - S

~~Cuhaj (2014) needs an ISBN, publisher, and place (OCLC 848049219) - 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'm gonna go through and fix the citation style. Generalissima (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Seems to represent all viewpoints fairly, not much coin drama to balance anyway. This is fine - S
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Clean page history, no edit warring visible - S
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
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
Pass/Fail:
@Schminnte: I made all the changes that were suggested. :3 Generalissima (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima, I've struck points I feel are fine now. There are still some unaddressed points in sections 1 & 2. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 14:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte: I think I have addressed these now. Generalissima (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima, replied to one, just the points in criterion one about the lede and redlinks now. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ope, forgot that one. Responded! @Schminnte: Generalissima (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this now. Happy holiday, and congratulations! Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.