Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five pounds (British gold coin)/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [1].

Five pounds (British gold coin)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the sovereign series of British gold coins, this one the largest, in fact one of the largest gold coins actually struck for circulation.Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon - "well-known" is iffy...
All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci, which has traditionally been used" --> to something like "sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian, which has traditionally been used
I did a variation on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five guinea gold coin started out (in 1668) as a coin worth 100 shillings (5 pounds), and was sometimes called a five-pound coin. This was before the fluctuating value of the guinea settled at twenty-one shillings (in 1717) -- Why put the dates in parentheses?
I've eliminated the parens, which were in the article before I started work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accordingly, Richard Lobel, in his Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins, there is some case that the five-pound piece issued after the Great Recoinage of 1816 is merely a continuation of the earlier coin, which was last struck in 1753. -- "According to", I assume
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost every speaker" -- I might link this for those who aren't familiar with British politics
Link what? What is meant is that every one who addressed the issue in debate favoured the denomination, not multiple speakers of the House of Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comma is needed after "A Guide to English Pattern Coins"
  • Lobel, in describing the 1820 five-pound piece, noted that on a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book, A Guide to English Pattern Coins presented to an unknown person with the publisher's compliments, there is a pencil notation that work on the 1820 piece was completed a few days before George III's death, and after Pistrucci, walking home on the day the king died, heard church bells announcing the demise is a bit longwinded too.
  • sold in 2021 for US$1.44 million (£1.04 million Since this is a British coin, should the pound value be first? Ditto elsewhere.
I'm not certain. The dollar figure is the amount it actually sold for, the other a conversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • put paid to the preparations seems a tad too idiomatic. How about "ended the preparations"?
  • Edward later requested a set of -- "later" is redundant
I don't think it is. This places it after his kingship.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • gold had vanished from circulation for over 20 years doesn't seem like it's worded right...
Why? Gold ceased to circulate much after the start of the First World War. It did not return, even Churchill's much-vaunted return to the gold standard in 1925 did not involve gold circulating as it had pre-1914.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording suggests that it vanishes from circulation every year after itnroduction. I understand the point of the sentence, but "for over 20 years" implies that it is continuously disappearing, rather than having just become absent over 20 years prior. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting wording would continue to be used on Elizabeth's coinage --> "The resulting wording continued to be used on Elizabeth's coinage"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • well over face or bullion value --> "well over face and bullion value", right?
No, I think it's better as is. Face value is one thing, and of course by the 1980s a five-sovereign piece in gold is going to run you more than five pounds, the stress is on the fact that the collector's pieces cost more then their bullion value. I could delete "face or" but I'd rather keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • very year until and including 1998 -- Is there a more ergonomic way to put this? I like your later "Pieces up to 1984" etc. Ditto for the 2015 line.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might link Royal Arms
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford comma is used in someplaces and not in others...
Can you point to the one providing the inconsistency? It is the style of this article not to use a comma after the penultimate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed this. These are the unwanted uses of the Oxford comma:
  • among Royal Mint officials, prominent numismatists, and other important people
  • a bust of King George by Bertram Mackennal, Pistrucci's reverse, and a legend
  • in 2002 (by Timothy Noad, depicting a crowned shield within a wreath), in 2005 (a more modern interpretation of the George and dragon, also by Noad), and in 2012

That's all I got. Everything else looks good. ~ HAL333 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I've either done as you asked or respond/questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the one remaining item from the original list, plus the thing about the gold vanishing from circulation. All done. Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Happy to support another numismatic article. ~ HAL333 21:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commas done now. Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from CT55555

[edit]
  1. I think, but I'm not sure, that "Saint George and the dragon" should capitalise Dragon
I've capped
  1. I think, but am also not sure, that Jubilee coinage could do with words around it to explain that the Jubilee coinage was. I assume coin collectors might know this term and other readers might not.
I've cut it for lead purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also not sure, should the "S" be italic or in inverted commas for "mint mark S"? Same for "an encircled U"
Since these are symbols and not legends, it is the practice in numismatic articles not to italicise them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I recommend a link to Royal Mint when first used (in lead), likewise for Shilling, Coinage Act,
That's done, but Coinage Act is just a reference to the Coinage Act 1816, which is linked
  1. Unlink second Saint George and the dragon, consider capitalising "dragon"
Capitalized. This article follows a standard practice of linking once in the lead section, then once for the same term in the body of the article.
  1. "the broken spear" implies the reader has been introduced to a broken spear. But I think they have not. So "a broken spear" would read better to me, or earlier introduce a broken spear.
I've introduced by mentioning it's on the coin.
  1. Should "Victoria five-pound coins" be "Queen Victoria five-pound coins"? (I don't know, just a suggestion). Same with all other monarchs, currently it assumes the reader know's Victoria's job title.
It's my thought that this is not a basic-level article and we can assume a certain level of knowledge. Besides, the infobox introduces Victoria as a past British monarch.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Need a full stop after "modern sovereign"
  2. Unlink "death of Elizabeth II" the second times it is used, I think.
See my comment above about linking once in the lead and then again in the body. It is also permissible to link a term once per section if desired (see MOS:DL but we don't go that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, lots of very minor comments, no major issues identified. I'm too new to this to offer a support/oppose. CT55555(talk) 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, I've just seen that my "unlink the second use of..." themed comments contradict Hal333 above. Sorry. Feel free to disregard those comments. CT55555(talk) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to at least. Thanks for your helpful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Never mind, I see this is already present on the coins themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know most people who are going to read this article know what "numismatic" means, but link it anyway for the rest of us who may encounter it and don't know what it is?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows Benedetto Pistrucci's St George and the Dragon design" Perhaps give context for why this motive was used? The connection is probably known by most Brits, but not to the rest of us.
I added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Una and the Lion are characters in Spenser's The Faerie Queene" Give year it was published? And though perhaps known to all Brits by surname, spell out Edmund Spenser for the rest of us?
First name added. Century works better than year, and I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "removing BRITT OMN (of all the Britains)." Do we know why?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a version resembling the original" Just resembling, or was the original image used?
It's described by the Royal Mint as Pistrucci's original so I've gone with that.
  • Link "Una and the lion" in the intro?
  • Bullion could probably be linked.
Both of those done. I think that's everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, only thing left is that Benedetto Pistrucci is now linked twice, and I would think George and the dragon should also be linked at first mention instead of what is now second?
I think I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A few minor points, none of them affecting my support:

  • "the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George" – is Pistrucci's nationality relevant here?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The examples struck in preparation for the coinage of Edward VIII are highly-prized" – I don't think you want the hyphen
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book" – I think the MoS bids us put a space between people's initials, so that the author would be G. F. Crowther, rather than G.F. Crowther.
Spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mintmarked" – the OED makes "mint mark" two words, but then rather sabotages itself by citing uses of "mint mark", "mint-mark" and "mintmark" – so I think any of the three will do fine.
I think "mint mark" is more common, but as a verb, "mintmarked", yea, though I battle my autocorrect that wants to make it two words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed some debatable capitalisation or lack of it: I might ask why "empress of India" appears cheek by jowl with "Prime Minister" but as I have concluded that attempting to understand capitalisation of job titles is an infallible means of going mad I refrain from further consideration of the matter.

That's my lot. Make of these few inconsequential comments what you will: I am happy to support either way. – Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've done the specific ones and will continue to look over the capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. This is another top-notch coin article by our maestro, and be careful not to look too intensely at the capitalisation – we don't want to see you sticking straws in your hair. Tim riley talk 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The first paragraph is 67 words long and comprises two sentences. Both are beautifully written and grammatically flawless, but there are both a bit on the long side and a little convoluted. I think the information could probably be done a bit more smoothly with shorter sentences and less linguistic acrobatics. I won't push the point because nothing is actually wrong with them, but it's worth a thought.
I split the lead sentence. There's a lot of connected material to get through in that first paragraph, I think I'll leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Origins
  • The first paragraph swaps between numbers as figures and numbers as words(it goes five, 100, 5, five, twenty-one, five and two) –these should be made consistent where possible
Done--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there had been no issuance of coins more valuable than a guinea and intended for general circulation": I'm not sure what the "and" is doing there – it confuses rather than clarifies
It's to exclude the pattern two- and five-guineas coined in the 1760s and 1770s. But I suppose the "and" can be cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early issues
  • Worth linking or piping pattern coin – this is the first use since the lead
OK
  • "surrounded by a Garter": 1. Is the capital correct; 2. Maybe worth a slight tweak to have two links for "garter circlet"
Probably simpler to pipe to the Order of the Garter and let the reader make of it what they wish. As for the capitalisation, I believe it necessary to signal to the reader that this is not simply an item of clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heroic efforts": I'm not sure there was anything "heroic" about it – maybe reword a shade to make it less peacocky?
I've made it clear that this was the author's perspective and it is not in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria five-pound coins
  • You have "Queen [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]]", when you could (and should) have "[[Queen Victoria]]"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most famous and attractive": needs to be attributed – it's POV as it stands
Attributed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reverse shows Queen Victoria": She can just be "Victoria" here
She can be she, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'mintmarked "S",': Shouldn't' that be ' mint marked "S",'?
In my experience in numismatics, it is more commonly one word than two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then the four uses of ‘mint mark’ should be made consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've avoided the matter by rephrasing. There is ample authority on both sides on this one and at least we're consistent. Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me – hope they help! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • "the Royal Mint struck five-pound coins with a reverse design by Noad showing an interpretation of the Royal Arms." Possibly a bit picky, but the source three times states that the sovereign coin has the arms on the reverse; could you point me to where the design on the reverse of the five pound coin is similarly specified? Thanks.
I thought the mentions in the tables below the text that Noad designed each denomination was sufficient, but to nail it down, I've added a second source that shows and discusses all five coins in the sovereign range.
  • Alt text: "Gold coin showing a knight battling a dragon". "A knight"? Really? How does one tell? Perhaps 'a naked man on horseback'?
You aren't the first to make that criticism but as the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear, perhaps we should go with the intent?
If several editors have commented, possibly there is a widespread view that "knight" is not appropriate. The first line of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images[edit source]]] is "Alternative text (or alt text) is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image." I don't see how describing a purported intention is conveying the same information as conveying the same information as looking at the image. Even after being told that "the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear" I still don't see how he is a knight, and I probably know more about knights and their paraphernalia than the average reader. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant art critics, not editors. I'll change it. Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Alt text, image licencing and usage seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2023 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Five_pounds_(British_gold_coin)/archive1&oldid=1168930413"