Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five pounds (British gold 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [1].
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)
Comments from HAL
edit- well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon - "well-known" is iffy...
- "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
- 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?
- 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
- "Almost every speaker" -- I might link this for those who aren't familiar with British politics
- I would link St George and the dragon in the body as well.
- 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.
- put paid to the preparations seems a tad too idiomatic. How about "ended the preparations"?
- Edward later requested a set of -- "later" is redundant
- 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)
- The resulting wording would continue to be used on Elizabeth's coinage --> "The resulting wording continued to be used on Elizabeth's coinage"
- 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)
- 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.
- I might link Royal Arms
- 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)
- 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
- I somehow missed this. These are the unwanted uses of the Oxford comma:
- 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)
That's all I got. Everything else looks good. ~ HAL333 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Prose comments from CT55555
edit- I think, but I'm not sure, that "Saint George and the dragon" should capitalise Dragon
- I've capped
- 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.
- Also not sure, should the "S" be italic or in inverted commas for "mint mark S"? Same for "an encircled U"
- 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
- 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.
- "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.
- 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.
- Need a full stop after "modern sovereign"
- Unlink "death of Elizabeth II" the second times it is used, I think.
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)
- 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)
Funk
edit- This will be a layman review, as I know little about coins. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Add years to image captions of the coins?
- 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?
- "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.
- "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?
- "removing BRITT OMN (of all the Britains)." Do we know why?
- "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.
Support from Tim riley
editA 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?
- "The examples struck in preparation for the coinage of Edward VIII are highly-prized" – I don't think you want the hyphen
- "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.
- "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 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)
SC
editPutting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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
- "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
- 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"
- "heroic efforts": I'm not sure there was anything "heroic" about it – maybe reword a shade to make it less peacocky?
- Victoria five-pound coins
- You have "Queen [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]]", when you could (and should) have "[[Queen Victoria]]"
- "one of the most famous and attractive": needs to be attributed – it's POV as it stands
- "the reverse shows Queen Victoria": She can just be "Victoria" here
- 'mintmarked "S",': Shouldn't' that be ' mint marked "S",'?
That's all from me – hope they help! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
- 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?
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
Image review
editAlt text, image licencing and usage seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2023 (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. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.