Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double florin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [1].

Double florin edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a very short lived British coin. Not only was it the curse of barmaids, but the two men who designed it died less than a year after it was abolished, and the conflict over the designs may have contributed to their deaths. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:2_florin_Victoria_-_Obverse.png, File:2 florin Victoria - Reverse.png, File:1887 UK proof set.jpg, File:Golden Jubilee Medal of Queen Victoria MET DP100543.jpg, File:Great Britain, crown, 1891, Victoria.jpg, shouldn't these have a license tag for the coin as well as the photograph? I assume it's covered by {{PD-UKGov}} or something like that.
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would split up the "production" section with subheadings, it is quite long for reading especially on mobile devices (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I always enjoy Wehwalt's articles about coins, and in this one in particular the interest is as much human as numismatic. My only quibbles on the prose are:

  • in a BrE article (impeccably done by our American colleague) "program" would normally be "programme" if not talking about computers,
Curses. I missed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd capitalise "Government"
Nor would I, they only do mischief with the money. Oh. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a BrE article the false title in "Numismatist G.P. Dyer" isn't quite the thing.
See first comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no high opinion of Simon Heffer, but shall refrain from contending that he is not a WP:RS. Very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA: it seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I much enjoyed reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support. Always grateful for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "The next larger coin in denomination" wording is a little confusing. Should it be "next largest"?
  • "Government discouraged the use of half sovereigns" => "The government discouraged the use of half sovereigns"
  • "the largest denomination coin with which change could be made from a pound" - the British phrase is "change could be given"
  • "to aid in change making" - same here
  • "continuing to be struck in decreasing numbers through 1902" => "continuing to be struck in decreasing numbers until 1902" (the expression "through [date]" is not used in BritEng)
  • "The Numismatic Guaranty Company, a coin grading service, differentiates little between the circulation-issue varieties of the double florin, in all but the highest grades, rating each (in American dollars) at $15.50 (the melt value), rising to between $400 and $750 in near-pristine condition" - should this have an "as of date" appended, as it may change over time?
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun edit

  • I don't know much about coins, but I'll try to review.
  • "longtime monetary system" → What does this mean?
It simply means that is how the money worked. If you have better terminology, I'll happily adopt it.
  • Link Gladstone government.
  • Link House of Commons.
  • Link numismatist.
  • "G.P. Dyer" → " G. P. Dyer"?
  • "Eastern trade in 1887." → Here, ref 17 is placed after "trade", so is the ref at the end of the next sentence the citation for the year?
Exactly. The first source discusses the transaction itself but does not mention the year. The second source mentions the transaction in less detail but does supply the year.
  • "silver cons is too great" → typo
  • That's all I could find – good work here and a surprisingly interesting coin! AryKun (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed this, will work on this shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. If I haven't specifically responded, it means I've just fixed that issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

Drive-by from CPA edit

  • There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in the Background/Inception and the Release and controversy sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some adjustment to the Release, though it means keeping more images on the right than I'd like (with the left facing bust of Victoria, a lot of the images have to be kept on the right). I don't see the issue with the Background/Inception, unless on your browser the infobox is stretching all the way through the background section and into inception. Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the browsers (have tried this out on different browsers). However I think I found the problem my monitor is 1440px and on my laptop (which is 1070px) I saw no sandwich while my monitor says somethingdifferentt. Hmm I now am kindconfuseded since Ithoughtt Wikipedia hastandardiseded their images and articles to all kinds of devices and screens. Is there a way tstandardiseise this to get rid of this issue? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this more an issue you are having with articles than specific to this? I see you've posted to a number of FACs and MH A-class reviews. From what I can tell, the images here are well-spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, my monitor might have a bigger resolution than a monitor/laptop, however as far as I know MOS:SANDWICH does not have an exception for screen diversity and sizes. Unless there was a discussion about this in the past with a solution for this issue. I think as long MOS:SANDWICH doesn't give an expeception or is changed the images should still be changed even if the majority of PC users use a format of 1070px. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SANDWICH is a guideline, not a policy and in any event subject to WP:IAR. But I think I've arranged the images so you should not have any sandwiching issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's good enough since I still have sandwich with the quotebox and File:1887 UK proof set.jpg. but I think this is the best we can get currently. As you said it's indeed a guideline and I don't really mind if the guideline has been ignored once. However I still believe we only can use that 'rule' if there's no other solution left like this article has currently. The majority of readers on desktop and laptop uses 1070px as their resolution and I hope Wikipedia will fixes this issue as soon as possible since there is a small percantege who uses bigger resolution like I am. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Not much to say here. I fixed a minor error; other than that:

  • Seaby looks like it might be self-published; can you confirm it's a reliable source?
Yes, it is a reliable and neutral source, which was sold in shops and the like. I remember seeing it on my visits to Britain, though I think I bought my copy secondhand. Numismatic books in the UK seem to be much more published by coin firms than in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link to Lant is broken.
It works for me, odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me now too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting looks good. Ling's script says there's an inconsistency in publisher location, which I think is because the HMSO and Hansard cites don't have locations, but I don't think that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

Will have a few comment here. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and remains legal tender for 20p" - recommend spelling out the currency value (I think pence?) here, as the UK's decimal coinage system isn't super familiar in much of the US.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the infobox stuff isn't cited - silver content, percent silver, mass, the milled edge, and the diameter. My guess is that the catalog number is self-proving and is fine without a citation
Cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " rendering it a token coin, but the change was abandoned" - I think you want the link token money instead of token coin
Swapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the first two external links go with WP:ELNO #1. The online coin club link at least includes extra images of the coin, but the first two don't seem to add anything of significance.
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one's in pretty good shape; just needs a couple more tweaks. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by query edit

Wehwalt, is cite 65 really "col. 84–84"?

Gog the Mild, should be 834, fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (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/Double_florin/archive1&oldid=1073289238"