Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourpence (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) 13 July 2024 [1].

---

Fourpence (British coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin which was never very popular, but which when brought back in the mid-19th century caused minor controversy. For some reason, it was more popular in Scotland and in British Guiana than in England and Wales, though the reasons for that lineup seem a bit obscure. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support from RoySmith

• Not really an issue for FAC, but right now Fourpence is a redirect to Groat (coin). You probably want to make that into a WP:DAB page instead. Actually, the bigger question is why do we need both articles? Aren't they talking about the same coin?

I think groat (coin) should probably be moved to groat (English coin) which is the usual naming convention for pre-1707. I've moved that now.

I've been thinking on this a bit and your comment on the forked discussion clarified things for me. You mention in the lead (but not the body) about the Acts of Union 1707 but I didn't fully understand the significance. I think it would be useful briefly explain what the Acts of Union is, for the benefit of readers who aren't well versed in British history. That will help them understand why these groats are not the same as those groats. I'm thinking something like "the Acts of Union 1707, in which Scotland and England joined to form Great Britian, leading to the issuance of a common currency". Maybe put this right before "The first groats following the union of England and Scotland in 1707 were struck the following year..." and make that the start of a new section, perhaps called "Post unification".

I think I've done what you wanted, through perhaps in different words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks great, exactly what I had in mind. Happy to support at this point. This is a topic that I previously knew nothing about, and never would have suspected I would find interesting, but you wove this into a compelling narrative that kept me reading through to the end. Nice work. My support is just on the quality of the prose; I'm relying on other reviewers who know the subject matter to validate the correctness and comprehensiveness. RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Thanks for a thorough review. I've often found it's the people who come in without knowledge of the subject matter who can make the most compelling points.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Unless it's established usage for coinage articles, I don't think the use of {{sfrac}} is a good idea. I generates something which is illegible on my phone, and doesn't look so great on my desktop either. Why not the more common 1/3?

I've switched to {{frac}}, which is commonly used in coinage articles.

• pre-Union groat see WP:SEAOFBLUE. Same with "Radical MP" elsewhere.

Both are now changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Explain what "struck" means, or at least link it to some appropriate place which does explain it.

Linked to mint (facility)

• The groat was struck throughout the 18th century, though by its end... Does that mean "the end of the 18th century" or "the end of when groats were produced?"

""Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• For the latin inscriptions which contain abbreviations, you use (short for "..."). I get the desire to indicate that you are expanding abbreviations instead of just literally translating, but I find the "short for" stuff breaks up the flow for the reader. I think it might work better without those.
• I'm not convinced there. People might assume it's the literal translation.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• What is "Snr" as in "Johann Rudolph Ochs Snr"?

As I understand it it's "senior". See MOS:SR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link "obverse" and "reverse" the first time they're used; many people will not be familiar with those terms.

OK

• Groats were available by application at the Royal Mint... I don't know what most of this paragraph means. I'm assuming it make sense to somebody who is well versed in coinage, but I'm just lost. Who would be making these applications? What does "the cost of carriage" mean?

I've striven to make this clearer. As far as I can tell, anyone could go there and buy as many groats as they cared to purchase. The cost of carriage is the expense of getting the coins from London to Manchester at a time when the railways were just starting. It was more usual for the Bank of England to distribute coins to local banks and for them to reach the public that way.

• Beginning in 1838, the coin bore the portrait, by Wyon, of Queen Victoria Wyon was introduced far enough before this (in the previous section) that it's worth mentioning again who he is.

I've changed to "also by Wyon". We don't give any detail on him so that at least sends the reader back to the William IV groat.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The threepence was one of the Maundy coins... why is this mentioned in an article about the fourpence?

The threepence replaced the groat in commerce, and in the discussion of how the Britannia groat came to be in 1836, the proposal was to take one of the Maundy coins and strike it for use in Britain. So the threepence fit the original criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The infobox images need ALT text.

That is done now--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll get around to doing a full review, so for now just consider this some random comments.

Taking another pass:

• who noted that fourpence was the cab fare for short journeys I'm guessing that means in London, so clarify.

It's at least implied, so I've added it.

Hmmm. In another review I just finished, I made a big stink about only saying what a source said, not what it implied, so I'm concerned that you're doing the same thing here.

Lobel says at p.559, "It was initially popular for the payment of London hackney (taxi) fares, being the exact fare or half a mile ...". Added as second source.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• The new coin did not endear him to hackney drivers Is "hackney" a synonym for "cab"? I think it is, but not sure and some readers may not have any clue. Maybe just use the same word everywhere?

  Done, more or less. I've kept one use of hackney as "hackney cab" and avoided it elsewhere.

• English coins were generally struck by machine, including the groat -> "English coins, including the groat, were generally struck by machine"
• Since, from 1689, groats bore a crowned numeral 4... I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. I don't understand what "Since" is referring to.
• The placement of the "Edward I groat" image is strange next to text talking about the Anne version.
• there probably was not room for them I'd treat this as an opinion which needs to be attributed, i.e. something like "According to Lobel, these were left off due to a lack of room".

I don't think inline attribution is needed, it's hardly controversial that there was no room to list the titles George I imported from Germany. So I've just stated that it was likely.

• infrequently-struck Should be two words, I think.
• The third obverse, by Benedetto Pistrucci in 1817, moved the date to the obverse, if the date was moved, then the reverse changed too (to remove the date), no?

The most obvious changes were the date and the inscription. Pistrucci also changed the bust and did his own version of the crowned four. I'm trying to hit the highlights here.

I think I've hit everything. If I haven't responded to something above, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

• File:1888 groat obverse.jpg and File:1888 groat reverse.jpg - Released into PD by Heritage, coin design PD. Not FA criteria, but it'd be nice if someone could make the background transparent here. I might do it later.
• File:1792 groat obverse.jpeg and File:1792 groat reverse.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:1836 groat obverse.jpg and File:1836 groat reverse 1.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:Edward I groat obverse.jpeg and File:Edward I groat reverse.jpeg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:1839 groat obverse.jpeg and File:1839 groat reverse.jpg - Released into PD by heritage, coin design PD.
• File:Groat group.jpg - CC-BY 4.0

All images are relevant to the article. All have alt-text except the infobox image, which needs it. Once this is done, all will be ready.

Is there a way of getting alt text into the infobox?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's documented anywhere, but obverse_alt seems to work. See my sandbox for an example. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(Also, side note: there's an error in the mintage figures. You've listed 1851 twice, and the years don't line up with the description you give in "Reaction, later issues and colonial striking" - Where's the 1857-1862 issues? Also, I'd be very interested if you could find any info on the 1850 - that's a pretty high mintage for no survivors, so there must have been some melting going on.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The 1850 mintage was probably with dies dated 1849. I'm not coming up with anything on the 1857 or 1862, this were proof-only mintages. There was no general proof set of those years so I can't go around by trying to find the mintages of such sets. I've fixed that typo you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Alt text is now added. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay! It might be good to just mention the proof-only years in the mintage figure list, even if specific dates are not available. Anyhoo, Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "It is a continuation of the groat series struck before the Acts of Union 1707, issued intermittently beginning in the late 13th century." I don't think that the reverse chronological order works here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reordered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

Comments incoming. Feel free not to agree to them (with justification,, of course).

lead

• a function it still fulfills "fulfills" should be changed to "fulfils" per WP:BrEng.
• sixpence without a request for change "request for change" ==> "change request" (conciseness)

I think it's worth the words, the shorter way is less clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

origins of the groat

• This is done despite the fact that the groat was never used "despite the fact that" ==> "even though" (conciseness)
• Prior to that, only the silver penny "Prior to" ==> "Before"

post-unification

• the groat made no reference to George's "made no reference" ==> "did not refer"
• identical inscriptions but for the roman numeral II added "Roman" should be capitalised
• have been by Richard Yeo, and saw slight modifications to the reverse comma isn't needed

britannia issues

• silver coins, even twopence as a sixpence could receive a groat in change ==> "silver coins, and even twopence as a sixpence could receive a groat in change"

I'm not sure this would read correctly. What about a comma after twopence?

• I'd also recommend linking the newspapers

I only saw one that needed it.

reaction, later issues and colonial striking

• one of the Maundy coins, and was struck for colonial use remove the comma
• and circulated there for many years after it ceased to elsewhere in Great Britain remove "to".
• There's a single sentence paragraph. Anywhere we can put this?

I don't really think so. I can't think of anything else to say on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

collections

• There are a number of overdates and other varieties "a number of" ==> "several"

Fantastic work on the article as always. I hope the comments were helpful. 750h+ 03:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's it I think. If I havent' responded, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support. With the “britannia issues” section, I’m fine with either. 750h+ 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Blest if I can find anything much to carp at after two read-throughs. I don't think a blue link from the lead to hackney drivers would hurt. And perhaps the connexion between "joey" and Joseph Hume could be made more explicit: here is the OED on the point: These pieces are said to have owed their existence to the pressing instance of Mr. [Joseph] Hume, from whence they for some time bore the nick-name of Joeys. (E. Hawkins, Silver Coins of England 421). Nothing there to stop me adding my support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and is well up to the standard of Wehwalt's continuing series on British coinage. Tim riley talk 13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the supports. I've taken care of those two points. Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Question from Graham Beards

What makes this a reliable source? Robert Leach (2013). "Legal Tender" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 16 June 2017. Graham Beards (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if self-published, Leach seems to be an expert in the field.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there not a better one? Graham Beards (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Not that I've found. The point is theoretical, the Decimal Currency Board didn't waste time calling in coins that were unlikely ever to be seen in commerce. They didn't call in the double florin either. If you feel strongly the source should go I'll just delete the text. Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Graham Beards (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

SC

• "defender of the faith}." – Wrong closing bracket
• "Maundy coins,\ and": A rogue virgule has found its way in there
• Mintage: do the entries need to be hidden?

That's my lot – very interesting. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made those two changes. My rule of thumb is that if the list takes up more than a screen on my laptop, it's better to collapse, and it takes up more than two. A bit subjective in a way I know but I don't want too long a gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - All good - another nice article - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Lobel and Spink are coin catalogues that appear reliable for coin related content, but I can't access them.
• Other books listed in "bibliography" section are well-footnoted scholarly secondary RS.
• Sources not in the bibliography section are mostly 19th century newspapers, an original royal proclamation related to the coin and a museum website, which are fine given what they are used for. None of these have named authors that could be credited, so the way they are cited here is acceptable. Two minor concerns below.
• What makes Robert Leach a reliable source?
• Royal Mint Annual Report 1888: would be nicer with page numbers
• Both reference section and bibliography section are almost consistently formatted.
• Exception: Dyer & Gaspar has the chapter name in title case, while the titles of the newspaper articles are in sentence case. Is there a good reason for this?
• Is it worth linking to Standard Catalogue of British Coins?

Spotchecks available on request. Just a few minor queries above. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted Leach, standardised the capitalisation, added the link to the Standard Catalogue and added page numbers for the 1888 report. That's everything I think. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is all. Passing. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• The lead doesn't mention that this is a silver coin.

Added.

• "from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union 1707." Would that read better as 'from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union in 1707'?
• "It is a continuation of the English groat series struck intermittently from the late 13th century until the Acts of Union 1707. The groat was struck throughout the 18th century ..." The first sentence suggests that it ceased to be struck in1707m, the second otherwise.

The English groat ceased to be struck in 1707, the series known as the British groat began. It made no great difference in the case of the groat, since the design continued, but 1707 is considered by the sources the dividing mark between English and British coinage, because the 1707 acts required a single currency in Great Britain, and that was what was formerly known as the English series. There were some design changes to the heraldry on the coinage and changes in inscription but because of its small size, those did not affect the groat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah ha. In which case "The groat was struck throughout the 18th century ..." → 'The British groat was struck throughout the 18th century ...' may help prevent puzzlement in future readers.

• More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Done up to date. If I haven't said anything, I've just done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• "This is done even though the groat was never used as part of the Royal Maundy charity distributions ..." Perhaps 'This is done even though the groat was not used as part of the Royal Maundy charity distributions'?

Done, although I like the emphasis the original had.

• "Croker and/or Bull designed". MOS:ANDOR, "Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward." Perhaps 'Either Croker or Bull, or the two together, designed'?
• "Rudolph Ochs Snr". I'm unsure about the US usage in a VarUK article.

It's not a US usage, but what I imagined to be the British. The source says ... Ochs, senior."

Then perhaps follow the source, spell it out and lose the upper-case S?

• "The reverse depicted the crowned 4". Why "the" rather than 'a'?

Because earlier issues also had a crowned 4, this is just a variation on the theme.

• "the fact that the groat was infrequently struck meant that the earlier design was kept for the groat". Is it possible to rephrase this to avoid "the groat" twice in the clause?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and was even issued in 1760, the year of George's death, even though". Similarly with "even".

I think the "even" calls attention to the fact that the early issue outlived the later, being struck to the latest possible date.

• "the obverse of his groat bears three different designs." Should groat be plural?

No. It's referring to the issue as a whole.

• "which has led it to be termed "wire money"." Consider deleting "has".

The terminology still persists as a coin collecting term, the "has" makes it clear that it was not just a 1792 term.

• "BRITANNIAUM REX FID DEF ( ... King of the Britains, defender of the faith)." Why the elipsis?

It's a continuation of the royal titles that started on the obverse.

• "other on a shield bearing a Union cross". What is a "Union cross"? Do you mean Union Jack or Union Flag?

King William's proclamation said "Union cross". I would imagine that it is the same crosses that appear on the Union Jack, and the examples of the coin we picture bear that out but I hesitate to indulge in original research.

If the source is William's speech or repeats of it, that's a primary source. What do the HQ RSs describe it as?

The most elegant I can find is "the crosses of the Union Jack" and I've altered to that.

• "In Manchester, though, the banks sold eight shillings worth of groats for ten shillings, to cover the cost of conveyance from the Royal Mint in London." That's interesting. Was that sort of thing common? And are any other similar regional discrepancies known for this issue?

Not for this issue. I've read that some of the early 19th century coppers could only be purchased at the Royal Mint in London and they did not pay for transport. Had the coins been distributed through the Bank of England's correspondent banks, this would not have been an issue, but then people would not have been able to buy them from the Royal Mint.

• "Britains", rather than Britons, is very old fashioned.

It doesn't refer to people but of countries, or islands originally, Great Britain and Ireland. When they added "OMN" in 1902, "All the Britains", this made it clear that it referred to places, not people.

• "King of the Britains, defender of the faith". Why the upper-case K?

It's how I read WP:JOBTITLES, the Louis XVI example.

• "and circulated there for many years after it ceased elsewhere in Great Britain." Should that be 'and circulated there for many years after it ceased to elsewhere in Great Britain'?

Yes. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've done or responded to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff. A pair of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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