Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/€2 commemorative coins

€2 commemorative coins

Most up-to-date and comprehensive resource on this topic available. Self-nomination. Has undergone internal peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. —Nightstallion (?) 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~~No references, and this is a list. When referenced, it should be nominated to featured list candidates.~~ Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of references – links to the Official Journal of the EU for every coin and for the intro paragraphs, plus external links which serve as references. Are you positive that this is a list? I was rather sure it was an article... —Nightstallion (?) 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - This isn't a list; however it is an article formed of several lists, many of which should be converted into prose if possible (especially 1st section). AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is much nicer. . I still think that this is a list. Some other people have also thought that, such as KTC. I'd like to point out that right now there is no consensus in this discussion as to whether this is a list or not. If it is not a list, then the sections written as a list should be converted to prose if possible. The lead needs to be expanded. It should summarize everything else. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded, 2006 issues changed to prose, Bundesländer series changed to table. Better? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Many articles about coins and currency appear to be lists because they must cover several types and variations of the same denomination in order to maintain a broad historical and geographic perspective. This article is more than a list, and it meets the featured-article criteria. Please note that it does cite its sources via in-line citations, references for each coin in the table, and a couple of supplementary references at the end of the page. --Tantalum T e lluride 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object for the following concerns 1) Lacks in-line citations other than embedded HTML links. The embedded HTML links in the article need to be converted into proper citations, while sections without any form of in-line citation need citations added.
What's not proper about them? They link to the source directly, and also clearly state where to they're linking... How would you prefer them to be cited?
- - Should be properly cited, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key for changing the embedded HTML links is to provide enough information that if the page that is linked to is moved or deleted then a fact checker would still have a fighting chance to locate a copy of the source. This means information like the name of the cited work and who wrote it is vital to a proper citation. --Allen3 ^talk 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've converted the in-text citations to footnotes style, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I think enough information is given for fact checkers to find alternative versions of the sources, all of which are excerpts from the Official Journal of the European Union. --Tantalum T e lluride 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have expanded the citations you added by adding the name of the journal that published your sources. ~~I still do not see any references supporting the inormation in the 2006 coinage or German Bundesländer series sections.~~ --Allen3 ^talk 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) ~~The volume numbers for individual coins needs to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) instead of using what appears to be a non-English language abbreviation (mio).~~
I still haven't been able to find the correct abbreviation for "million" in English, neither on Wikipedia nor in the first few dictionaries I could get my hands on. I changed it to "million".
3) ~~The listings in the references section need to be converted from simple HTML links into full citations. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for examples.~~
Done.
4) ~~This article is composed primarily of lists and needs to either be converted into prose or else moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.~~ --Allen3 ^talk 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I don't agree. The only list is the list of planned coins for the German Bundesländer series; the "2004 issues" and "2005 issues" section are not lists, but prose formatted in tables for easier reading. —Nightstallion (?) 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it delistified enough for you now? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing my last objection (too list like) because of the work to minimize the list like characteristics, but things have not gone far enough for me to support the article. --Allen3 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~Neutral for now until I take a stance. Following previous objections, the article doesn't contain any in-line citations, perhaps in the form of Footnotes. The references in the long list of coins should be converted into footnote format and then be referenced to at the bottom of the page; the reference column takes up a lot of space in the article. The ~~lists~~bullets in the ~~"Extracts of the Official Journal of the European Union"~~ and "2006 coinage" should definitely be converted into prose. AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. IMHO, either of those two sections can be presented best in this way, since it makes for easier reading... IMO, they're not lists simply because they use bullet points. You're invited to explain how the two sections could be reformatted to being full prose without becoming less easily readable.
- - Okay, technically they are not lists, but they are written in list format. I still think some of the bulleted items should be converted into prose. In references, I think generally the date of the creation/last updated goes behind the website itself. Finally, the lead is way too short. One sentence isn't good enough for a lead. AndyZ 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mh. WP:CITE gives the date after the name of the author. Lead expanded. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references, either TantalumTelluride or I will change their formatting until tomorrow. Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Lead is better now, though personally I think it could use some work work. Some of the references (like the percentages) are unreferenced. And €100 in Vatican City for a €2 coin? Where's the reference for that? Just a small thing, the table is slightly misaligned with the Images column. AndyZ 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mh. I think I can find a reference for the percentages. Regarding the €100 for the Vatican City's coins — yeah, that's true, but I don't know what to use as a reference for that; an on-line shop? eBay? shrugs I'm thankful for any ideas you might have...
    
    Furthermore, what do you think should be improved in the intro? And what do you mean by "the table is slightly misaliged"? Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    
    The percentages are actually already referenced in the OJ excerpt. —Nightstallion (?) 11:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Maybe it doesn't happen on your computer; on my computer the first column for all of the coin images is slightly misaligned with the top header word "image". Nothing important though. I'll look through the article again later. AndyZ 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite ready to support this article yet, though this is going to be pretty difficult to completely address. Overall, the impression of the article is that it simply is a long list of coins with a bit of information about the coins and their worth and when they were issued. It feels like something else still has to be added to it in order to be further through-ed, I'll see if I can think of some things that should be added to the article. Again, I still feel that the lead is a tiny bit short, since the leads of most FAs are at least 2 paragraphs (this article is slightly different because it is relatively shorter than most other FAs), but I guess the lead could be worked on a tiny bit more. AndyZ 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. What do you think should be added to the lead? If you could make more precise requests as to what should be added, I'd be happy to comply. Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all I think this is no list. I get the impression the layout is a bit messy and hard on the eyes for reading. Are you planning to use the reference column in the "2005 coinage" section? (empty at the time of writing) Do you plan to use a similar column in "2004 coinage"? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing up the issue with the references column. Now, I think the first section can be converted into prose without too much issue. The lead also needs to be expanded. And leaving a space between a coin description and the next coin may help readability of the table. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lead expanded, table spaced up. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TantalumTelluride has converted the article to use footnote style citations, so that should be adressed; if you still think certain sections need references, tell me which ones in specific, and I'll find some. Regarding the list issue: I don't think it matters whether information is presented with bullet points or without bullet points, the content matters; and the content is obviously not a list in either of the two sections cited above. The "German Bundesländer series" section is clearly a list, but articles can and should contain lists when called for IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I forgot to remove the extra reference column from the 2005 table. I moved all of the in-text references to footnotes linked via the superscript numbers at the end of each coin's description, so the column is no longer necessary. --Tantalum T e lluride 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added references for the two last sections (please correct the format if it's wrong, and I'm sorry that they're in German, but there aren't any others I could find on short notice); I de-listified the first section; and I inserted spaces into the table. If you insist that the "2006 issues" section really should not be in list form, I'll delistify that, too. Apart from that, I don't really know of anything else that you objected to, so could you all change to support now? =] —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It wasn't clear to me that these coins were for collecting only until I read it in euro coins. Maybe it's a good idea to state the obvious? Also, that section title "Extracts of the Official Journal of the European Union" just sounds strange, it doesn't tell the reader what the section is about. JoaoRicardo^talk 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stated the obvious, section title changed. Good? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object, one single sentence is not enough of a lead for FA. While I very much like the page, I feel this qualify more as a Feature list than a FA. If this was relisted under FLC, I'll be more than happen to support it (assuming I know it's been relisted under FLC of course). -- KTC 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Neutral, I'm still not sure about the list thing. So I'll just abstain. -- KTC 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead expanded. List issue... well. I've delistified as much as I could. If you still think it's a list, there's not too much I can do about it, is there? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lead expanded. 2006 issues and Bundesländer series sections delistified; the first by converting it into prose, the second by making tables. The flags in the tables are, of course, not necessary, so if you think they detract too much attention, I can remove them; I just thought it added a bit of colour. ;) If there's anything else I can do (any info that should be in the lead not there yet?), tell me. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support JoaoRicardo^talk 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed, thanks. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 08:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Would like to see more prose, but I suppose this is the next-best thing. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We now have native support for footnotes. Footnote3 should be deprecated, IMO, as this new format allows section editing and proper previewing of edits. :D Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Even after reading that page, waiting a few days, and reading it again, I don't really understand how it works... ^_^;; Could you help me with implementing it into this article? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. I hope you get the gist of how it works now. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Aaah... Yes, I think I got it. Thanks a lot for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a great list (it would sail through WP:FLC) but it does not contain enough "brilliant prose" for me to support it as a featured article. On the other hand, it does what it does well, so I will not oppose it. -- ALoan (Talk)

Support After most issues have been addressed, this is a very nice article. Definatly not a list. The tableing is alittle awkward, but I think it makes you look at it more closely. Joe I 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think the tables could be improved? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This statement needs to be referenced: Typically, the actual worth of these coins is slightly above the nominal value (between €3 and €12). The extreme cases are San Marino and the Vatican City: Coins from the former are sold regularily for between €30 and €40, while it is nigh impossible to obtain coins from the latter for under €100. Also, there should be a little more information on how collectors have reacted to the coins; most of what's in the article is just press-release stuff. If this is included, I will support. Andrew Levine 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. If only I knew were to find info on collectors' reactions... ;) Any suggestions? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT This article shows important coinage and numismatic information and should appear as Today's featured article ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.97.237.157 (talk • contribs) .