Talk:Sixpence (New Zealand coin)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Frostly (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2024 (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: Frostly (talk · contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I'll be reviewing this article! Best, Frostly (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Howdy, any update on the review? Generalissima (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, my sincere apologies, this flew off my radar. Will get this done by tomorrow. — Frostly (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Not to badger, but checking in again! Generalissima (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, sorry for the late reply! I had initially drafted this review twice, but my computer crashed and it was unsaved both times :(

Great work on the article! I find it very interesting to learn about coins pre-decimalisation :D

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good refs!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	High-quality sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good scope for the article!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nice balance of useful information regarding the coinage.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good coverage of different perspectives between the artists and committee.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit-warring or major changes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See comments below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-written alt text!
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead

coinage is used a lot throughout the article; if there’s any synonyms, it’d be nice to replace some of the usage to avoid repetition. (eg silver coinage introduced in the initial issue of New Zealand coinage)
were rejected by committee — clarify what committee it was
- Fixed both of these. - G

Background

and other British silver denominations — maybe remove? The article already mentions British silver coinage at the start of the sentence.
Consider linking to the subsection “Forgery of money or government bonds” for Counterfeit
The Coinage Act of 1933, consider removing unneeded comma
Perhaps clarify that the Royal Mint is the UK’s mint? I’m not sure about whether the name itself is enough for context (it might be).
- Fixed everything here. - G

Design

George Kruger Gray is introduced somewhat confusingly, in parallel with Metcalfe, who was already mentioned at the start of the paragraph. Consider rewording.
Metcalfe submitted a design for the sixpence featured two hammers — looks like a small grammar issue here
the Advisory Committee — the Advisory Committee is mentioned in the second paragraph without any background; it’d be great to have some more context.
Link George Forbes (New Zealand politician) and Gordon Coates
appointed a Coinage Design Committee — maybe clarify that this was a new committee established, separate from the Advisory Committee?
- Fixed everything here. - G

Mintage

Besides the proof sets — consider using “other than” here, since “besides” is already used in the previous paragraph. Not a big issue though, either could work.
'prooflike' should probably be changed to use double quotes (“) per MOS). (Single quotes are used inside quotations, to roughly translate phrases, or in plant cultivars).
collectors set — should this be collectors’ set (with the apostrophe)?
Table headings (eg George V Sixpence Mintage) — consider making it sentence case, like “George V sixpence mintage” (per WP:HEADERS).
- Fixed everything here. - G

Files

File:Coin-6-pence-new-zealand-1965-537613-large.jpg and File:1965 New Zealand Sixpence Reverse.jpg are tagged with CC licenses, but I’m pretty sure that they’re PD.
- The coins are PD, but the photographs of the coins are CC, which is slightly irritating to finagle. - G

Other

Right now the short description repeats information in the title, which is usually unnecessary; I’d recommend making it include the dates that the coin was minted, maybe.
- Used the short desc. from the Half-crown. - G
The New Zealand sixpence redirect is great; I’ve added an rcat.

That’s all from me for now! Frostly (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Thank you very much for your review! I think I fixed all the issues. Generalissima (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (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.