Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Florin (British coin)/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2017 [1].

Florin (British coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)', Arwel Parry (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)')[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was introduced as part of a decimal scheme and appropriately enough lived on the longest under decimal currency. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

Source #35 renders as "[[#CITEREF|]]". I'm presuming this is an error?

Fixed.

Source #41 is a PDF, but no page numbers are given are given.

It lacks page numbers and I worry about saying things like "17th unnumbered page".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citations style is inconsistent. Most are footnotes, but some (like #11, for example) are not.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually include web pages in the bibliography. I moved one book from refs to biblio. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moise

Victorian issues (1849–1901)

First paragraph refers to "Unlike the crown's gothic script". Should this be capitalized like in "The revised florin's diameter was increased to 30 millimetres (the weight was unchanged), and all the lettering on the coin was in Gothic script" in the third paragraph?
"Beginning with some 1867 issues, BRIT on the obverse was rendered BRITT, the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural, changing Victoria's title from "Queen of Britain" to "Queen of the Britains" (including the colonies and other territories)."

Does this mean "the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural" is to double the final consonant? If so, this should probably be clarified.
Minor suggestion, but I feel "(including the colonies and other territories)" could be made even clearer: for example, "thereby including the colonies and other territories" or "—this to include the colonies and other territories."

Done up to date. I think on the last one that with the splitting of the sentence, there's enough emphasis on "colonies" as to render your suggestion nonessential.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish the review this weekend. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background / Victorian issues (1849–1901)

"Bowring obtained surprisingly strong support for his motion" / "These first coins were probably a shock to the public". Both of these sound possibly subjective. Would you consider attributing these statements to the sources within the text itself, to eliminate any ambiguity?

They are both sources that would be difficult to describe in the required thumbnail length, since they don't have named authors. It's my thought that there's no risk of POV at the remove of 160 years ...

"Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time, with an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins, attracting only lukewarm support." I'm not convinced the comma after "coins" is grammatical, but I understand you probably added it to aid the reader in parsing the sentence. To avoid the problem, what if you reworked it something like "Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time; there was only lukewarm support for an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins." Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"From 1864 until 1879, many florins were struck with die numbers on the obverse (found to the right of Victoria's brooch,[13] possibly part of a Mint investigation into die wear." For coin buffs, this usage of "die" may be common, but I personally got a little confused initially what "die numbers" and "die wear" referred to ("wear" also having multiple meanings). Consider possibly wiki-linking "die" to Coining (mint)—that could reduce confusion some? Also, it's a little wordier, but maybe "die wear" could be changed to something like "the wearing down of dies"? Just ideas. Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VII (1901–1910)

"while the other side features what Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins deems "a most unusual and original reverse". It shows a windswept figure of Britannia standing holding a shield with her left hand and a trident with her right, and inscribed ONE FLORIN TWO SHILLINGS, with the date below." This passage includes both a description and appraisal of the appearance of the Britannia. I wonder whether the flow would be stronger if you brought this closer to the description and appraisal of the Britannia Peter Seaby that appears a little lower. As it is now, the flow is appraisal/description – background information – appraisal/description. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George V (1910–1936)

"While the weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." The reader may initially parse such that "due to rises in the price of silver" goes with what precedes rather than what follows it, and then have to double back to make sense of the sentence as a whole. To eliminate this possibility, how about something like: "The weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged; however, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)

"On 30 June 1993, following the issuance of the smaller ten pence piece, the old florin was demonetised. " This is the second sentence in a row with the structure ", following ___,". To avoid this, how about "A smaller ten pence piece was issued in 1992, after which the old florin was demonetised on 30 June 1993."

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done those. Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I may have been presumptuous just now and I presumed that your "I've done those" meant that you intended to include my "due to the price in silver" suggestion and that you may have accidentally missed it, so I took the liberty of changing it myself. I apologize, I should have double-checked with you first. Please revert if you disagree with the change, but I do urge you to do something with the sentence, which I feel did not read totally smoothly as it was. In any case, regardless of that sentence, I am happy to support now. Thank you. As with your other coin articles, I really enjoyed reading this one. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, Meant to but overlooked it. Thanks for the support and review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

What makes https://24carat.co.uk/florinstoryframe.html a high quality reliable source? Appears to be a commercial site selling coins...

Auction houses are particularly reliable coin sources, since they make their money off proper identification of coins. Chard's is a very well known firm for over a half century.

What makes http://robertleach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Quick-guide-to-legal-tender-2.pdf a high quality reliable source? Hes a tax accountant - what makes his a high quality source for coin history?

Hchc2009 looked at it in this source review, that you also did, and seemed to feel it was a suitable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can find a more recent source than Levi (from 1880!) for information on the parliamentary background.

I didn't see any other sources containing the detail. I would submit that it is only used for facts, rather than opinion, and the facts will not have been changed by the passage of time.

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violation.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Moise

All images are properly licensed.
It seems Godless florin.jpg and 1932 George V Florin (reverse).JPG are lacking alt text. Moisejp (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've added the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brian Boulton

Apologies for my late arrival here. I'm old enough to remember the pre-decimalisation florin, the "two-bob bit" – it's what your grandparents and great-uncles gave you when you visited. I bought by first (under-age) half-pint of bitter with such a coin - and got change! O tempora, o mores.

Not much to add here, beyond a few prose quibbles.

Lead

Second line: "just" unnecessary

Not completely. The sovereign, for example, remains legal tender, as do various other coins that were never demonitised (groat, silver threepence that resembles the Maundy coin, double florin are examples). I'm trying to limit it to the halfpenny to half crown range, the eight coins that were actually used in 1967. Changed to "immediately".

As this is a British topic I imagine that BritEng conventions have been applied. In which case, we tend to say "quarter of a century" rather than "quarter century".

Victorian issues (1849–1901)

Is there a link that might explain what is meant by "Gothic style"? (later: maybe unnecessary as you've linked "Gothic script" later.)
Maybe add a parenthetical (one-eighth of a pound) to your mention of the half crown.
After "Even more", a word such as "controversially" should be inserted, otherwise even more what?
Final sentence: "This reverse was created by Sir Edward Poynter, and was issued each year between 1893 and 1901, the year of Victoria's death" Yet the adjoining caption says: "1899 florin designed by Sir Edward Poynter".

I'm afraid I don't see the issue.

Nor, on looking at it again, do I. Scrubbed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George V (1910–1936)

Any reason for no mintings in 1934?

Almost certainly lack of demand but I'll research further.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of an outbreak of "due to" around here – two in this section, one in each of the next two sections. I'd vary the wording a bit.
Second paragraph begins: "The second florin..." This wasn't so much a "second florin", rather a revised design, so maybe begin "The revised design, dated 1927 to 1936, was by George Kruger Gray and did not..." etc

Edward VIII (1936)

Perhaps specify that no Edward VIII florins were struck

Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)

"When the reverse of the new coin was illustrated in the press, there was no consensus as to which way was up": I'm not entirely clear what is intended here, but I would have thought that the alignment of the head on the obverse would determine which was the "right way up", if that is what is meant.

They probably did not have the actual coins, just the photos, and not all coins are aligned with the top of the obverse just opposite to the top of the reverse. See coin alignment.

The otiose "just" appears again in the final sentence.

See my comments to the lede.

That's all. a nice piece of nostalgia. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I will say my first beer dispensed to me cost less than a florin, as it was after taking the tour of a beer factory when I was 16, there was no cost. I suspect that would be more difficult today, some not quite 40 years later ... but on my pre-1993 visits to the UK, I remember being quite interested in the pre-decimal survivors.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy with what you've done. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very nicely done. I don't remember this pre-decimalisation, but I certainly remember this coin. Just a few minor questions which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These first coins were probably a shock to the public": Is this a supposition of the source, or does it have any evidence?

I'm using the source's words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"including (allegedly) to Queen Victoria herself": I'm never too keen on "allegedly"; can we not simply say who alleged and what it was that supposedly happened?

I've looked at the source (and revised it slightly). It doesn't give details.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time": for the time sounds a little odd to me, and would make more sense as "for a time" or "for the time being", but I wonder could the sentence just be ended after "died out"?

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One question does occur to me; given that the florin seems to have been the beginning of an abandoned experiment, why was it continued once interest in decimalisation died out? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because when it was reassessed in the 1870s, it was found the florin filled a need in commerce. That's mentioned in connection with the resumption of the half crown.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I will respond to the one remaining matter either Monday night or Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done in all respects.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support An interesting read. I've made a couple of very minor formatting changes and am happy to support (my review "disclaimer" here). - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.