Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the British penny (1714–1901)/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) 19:13, 26 July 2017 [1].

History of the British penny (1714–1901) edit

Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk)--20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the penny, but about the crucial time when it evolved from a small silver coin rarely seen to a fairly large bronze coin which it stayed until decimalisation. So it either fell through holes in pockets, or caused them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good but there's something I wanna know before supporting it. Is the citation from "Mintages" apply to all the numbers below? Other than that, good work. Ping me once you solved it or the citation explains it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2 Yes, there no good way to hang a ref on these things. I just amended the ref to source the ones that say "unknown", the numbers were already sourced. Thanks for looking it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then leaving my support. Good luck with this nomination. Also, if you have free time I would appreciate if you could comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. I didn't nominate that article, but two fellows who worked hard on that did it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that. I'll be happy to look in on it. I'm writing right now so allow a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

I'm pleased to see this article, and I'm sure Uncle Matt would be very proud. I'm making a close review of the prose; here are my comments on the lead and the first couple of sections, with more to follow over the next day or two.

Lead

"Industrialist Matthew Boulton lobbied for a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham and gained it in 1797;" You might simplify this to "In 1797 industrialist Matthew Boulton gained a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham" - (four words saved, but every little counts)
"They were replaced by lighter bronze coins beginning in 1860, the "Bun penny", named for the hairstyle of Queen Victoria on it, was issued from then until 1894." Something not quite right with the punc. I think a semicolon rather than a comma after "1860" is required.

Silver penny (18th century)

"The beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain occurred..." → "The Hanoverian dynasty in Britain began..."
"during his time at the Royal Mint" – a basically unnecessary phrase that repeats words/phrases uses earlier in the line ("during his/the time", "Newton", "Mint"). And we have "at this time" later in the line. All a bit cluttery - suggest just delete the phrase. The prose reads perfectly well without it.
On further thought: do we need even the attenuated sentence "Newton worked to improve efficiency and accuracy"? It's a general observation, not followed up, and I think it can be assumed that Isaac would treat his duties with diligence.
You might elaborate note [a] to briefly cover why George I was described as "King of France" when he clearly wasn't.
redundant "as well" in third line of third paragraph.

I think that should stand. The penny, so far as is known, was always used, and sometimes the Maundy was entirely in pennies. I think "as well" is proper.

We seem to have got to "George II as an older man in 1740–1743" with no details of his accession, and no link either. For those without a sense of Britain's royal history this could be confusing. To keep it simple I would modify the previous sentence: "By 1727, when George II succeeded to the throne, the price of silver guaranteed that pennies were struck at a loss."

The introduction of George II, with link, is at the end of the second paragraph.

Yes, sorry I missed that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"would not have been worth the 12 weeks..." → "would not have been worth the 12 weeks' work..."
In the sentence dealing with New Year's Day 25 March it might be worth piping a link to Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Could the Maundy Money image clarify which is the silver penny? Top right?

Soho issues (1797—1807)

I find this sentence oddly constructed: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were in Birmingham, and industrialist Matthew Boulton both struck large numbers of tokens there and constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam." A little smoother might be: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were found in Birmingham, where industrialist Matthew Boulton struck large numbers of tokens and also constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam."
I'm wary of "It was not until" formulations, which might imply an unstated hidden agenda. Why not simply: "In 1797 the government gave Boulton a contract..."?
Link farthing at first mention
"In 1805, Boulton gained another contract..." A "further" contract would be better, as we've already had "another" earlier in the line.

Reading on with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done to date. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of my animadversions:

Regal issues (1825—1860)

"Finding its premises at the Tower of London too cramped and unsuited to the new technology, the Mint moved to a new building on Tower Hill, which first struck coins (for the East India Company) in 1811." The present construction implies that a building struck coins for the EIC. Suggest replace "which" with "and" .
"The coinage was by steam" – missing a verb: suggest "was created by steam power..."
"...that the copper coinage was seen to." "Seen to" seems slightly unencyclopedic. "that copper coinage recommenced"?
"George's pennies" → "George IV's pennies"
I recommend splitting the overlong sentence beginning "The final years of the copper penny..."
"These contracts were because of..." Again, it seems that a verb is required, e.g. "These contracts were issued because of..."

Bronze penny (from 1860)

"Thomas Graham, the Master of the Mint, persuaded William Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that.." When?
"the postman opened the parcel": "a postman", unless there was only one.
"There are a large number of varieties..." The grammar is equivocal. You can get round it with "There are many varieties..."
Punc issues in this sentence. The comma after "especially in 1860" should be a full stop

I've recast it slightly as I'd like to keep it as one sentence.

"and refers the reader to specialist books for further information" – not helpful to our readers. Suggest delete this phrase.
"The penny was given the new design beginning with 1895, and the new version was made current by a proclamation dated 11 May 1895." A bit clumsy. Suggest rewrite: "The new penny design was introduced in 1895, the new version being authorisedd by a proclamation dated 11 May of that year". Or similar.

That completes my prose check. Nothing of great consequence. I'll follow with a sources check if someone else doesn't get there first. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my concerns satisfactorily resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim. I've read Brian's comments above, and the only nitpick I'd add is that not until 1825 that pennies were struck for circulation might benefit from "again" after "were" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support, I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

Publisher for Crellin? What makes this a high quality reliable source?

The "About Us" page says he is a published author on numismatics and prominent in the Australian numismatic community.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not seeing Coins of England and the United Kingdom, Pre-decimal issues used as a source?~~

Ref. 48.

Well, that's not intuitive or obvious since ref 48 says "Spink" but the entry in the references says "Coins....". Remember, not everyone is going to understand the linking nor will it be present in a printed out book. (Nor, unfortunately, will it appear in the inevitable create-space knockoff of the article ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve added the firm as author as well. That should take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shall we meet here for the next FAC with the same issue? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short on time, so I won't do a point-by-point review. I see a lack of ALT text on a number of images as well as license issues: A photo of a coin needs 2 licenses, one for the coin design and the other for the photographer, but a number of files lack one of the licenses or are vague as to which license applies to which aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I've taken care of those things, thanks. There are two images uploaded by the photographer, that lack a license regarding the photograph, but when this has happened before, the feeling has been that uploading a photograph to Wikipedia shows intent to release the photograph according to the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coin from Uncle Jack 3-3-2010 5;58;03 AM1.JPG needs a license for the photo. File:Cartwheelrev.jpg does the OTRS statement apply to the photographer copyright? File:Wyon-bun-head-1869.jpg: needs a license for the photo as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. On the Cartwheel, the OTRS statement couldn't apply to the coin, which has long been out of copyright, so it has to (what else could it be?). The other two are the ones I spoke of, that were uploaded without a specific photographer copyright. As I said, this has been accepted as intent to release the photographs according to the Four Freedoms. Uploading an image to Wikipedia says you want to share it. I think the images are proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, sometimes people upload images and they don't own them. And we need to know under which conditions they are sharing images even when they own the copyright to them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when it's from their personal collection ... Anyway, I've swapped the Bun penny image for another and deleted Uncle Jack's contribution. The cartwheel I'm comfortable about the OTRS because I solicited the image 8 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 25 July 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) 19:13, 26 July 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.