Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2017 [1].

Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... something of a sideline from the Pistrucci one, about the famous Waterloo medal, that cost the British Government thousands of pounds, and at the end of the day, could not be struck in its original form. And if it had, it would have been useless, since most of the recipients were dead and it would have been politically imprudent to bring up Waterloo while wooing the French ... "Don't mention the war" ...Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal

There are 4 well-relevant images in the article. They have proper description templates and no copyright issues. ~~Just one minor issue, that the fourth image is moving into the references section due to which the references are gliding to the left.~~

~~Otherwise~~, everything is great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've moved that image up a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome one, yet again! It is a great article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gertanis

Perhaps add short description of Mr. Pistrucci in the very first sentence, as it is at present rather short.

I did, though I'm not sure it entirely helps.

"Commissioned by the British Government in 1819 on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent, the medals were to be presented to the victorious generals at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, and to the leaders of Britain's allies." – I fell into a garden path when I read that first part, and had to read the whole sentence thrice to make sense of it (though the link to prince regent certainly did help). Something with the prepositions, though don't ask me, I'm not a native speaker

I've simplified it a bit.

"Most of the intended recipients had died by 1849; with improving relations with France the medals were never struck, though modern-day editions have been made for sale to collectors." – "with...with"
"The Royal Academy proposed work by John Flaxman but Pistrucci, whose responsibility it was to engrave the dies, refused to copy another's work, and proposed designs of his own." — "proposed...proposed". Also, who was Mr. Flaxman?
"He likely concluded that he would be sacked if he completed it, something the Mint was reluctant to do before then lest the sums paid Pistrucci be wasted, and progress was extremely slow." – again, difficult to parse, especially w/ the tense oscillating between conditional, indicative and subjunctive. And whose judgement stands behind 'likely'?

Most of the sources say more or less the same thing on this point. It's backed up with a quote and inline attribution in the text.

"Pistrucci's designs have been greatly praised by those who have written on the subject." – i.e. numismatists?

I hope these comments don't come off as facetious, as I did genuinely have some difficulty reading it. YMMV Gertanis (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are excellent comments. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gertanis, are the changes to your satisfaction?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Gertanis (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk)

Comments from SchroCat

Lead

"on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent: copies" should that be a colon? I would have thought a semi would be better

Inception

Do we need the "Further information" link at the top? The link to the BoW is in the first sentence.

Design

"victorious generals, Wellington and Blücher" – you have linked Wellington above

Completion

"save only the Iron Duke": Another link to Wellington; this one may be better with no link and Wellington in brackets, or finishing the quote five words earlier and rephrasing the last bit.

Support Only very minor nit-picking, and none of it deal-breaking, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed. I've done all but the last. There's a certain extent to which this is the punch line of the entire article and if I do it in a quote it keeps my hands off, so to speak. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I've very little to offer here. The article is concise, compact and to the point. I've dredged up a few quibbles:

I've an aversion to the "due to" formulation, which occurs twice in the lead. Can I suggest rewording the first along the lines; "Since most of the intended recipients had died by 1849, and relations with France had improved,..."
The first sentence of the second lead paragraph reads a bit oddly, having just read that the Prince Regent commissioned the medal in 1819, and is also unnecessarily repetitive. I suggest simplify to "The Prince Regent had first suggested such a medal in 1816".
"Pistrucci fell from grace at the Royal Mint..." When?
"The price was £2,400": I think "fee" rather than price. Perhaps "Petrucci's fee..." Incidentally, that was a colossal sum for the times. Measuringworth estimates its purchasing power as £167,000 in today's money and nearly £2.5 million in relative income value. I'm not suggesting you use these figure, just observing.
"for appointment for the position" → "for appointment to the position"
The "private London Mint" – what is this organisation? Does it have any relation to the Royal Mint?

Support, in anticipation that the above will be considered and/or adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am very grateful indeed for your help. I've done those things. On the last, I've rephrased to stress that the London Mint is a private firm. I think most people will know that there are private firms that strike medals and such.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add I've not included the present-day value of Pistrucci's fee. After talking with a number of editors, I feel that money does not translate well over such a long period. Two hundred years ago you could have hot and cold running servants at a pittance.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All looks to be in order, with appropriately reliable sources. A couple of drafting points in the bibliography:

"Cambridge, Cambridgeshire" is unnecessary (smacks of "New York, New York"). No ambiguity about "Cambridge"
m-dashes in the year ranges? That's a new one on me.

Otherwise, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. As there is some chance of confusion with Cambridge, Massachusetts, I've changed the "Cambridgeshire" to "United Kingdom".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 1 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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 6 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.