Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovereign (British coin)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2018 [1].

Sovereign (British coin) edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... One of the world's longest-lived coins, which widely circulated over it in its time and is still popular as a bullion and collector's coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi edit

  • Clancy, pp. 47. P/PP error? pp. 47.;
Fixed.
  • Journals of the House of Lords. 52. 1818. p. 515. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
I can't find an OCLC for this, Google doesn't mention it and Worldcat turned up dry. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Clancy, pp. 64—67. P/PP error? pp. 64—67.;
Looks OK to me?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it's an emdash or two dashes, prob the latter
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cuhaj, George S., ed. (2009). missing location Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Location added. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Is this a full sources review? Please specify. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure. Lingzhi?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review: All clear here, captain! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A most enjoyable article, well and widely sourced and referenced, and evidently comprehensive. A few suggested BrE tweaks: percent → per cent (4 times); channeled → channelled; and Lloyd George is not hyphenated. And just checking that "enobled" in the Prince Regent's proclamation is so spelled in the original. The two notes, a and b, are to my certain knowledge accurate in every respect, but could nonetheless do, I think, with a citation apiece. That's all I can find to quibble about and I'm very pleased to support the elevation of this excellent article. Tim riley talk 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding "enobled", it is how they spelled it in the House of Lords Journal, but I find that most other contemporary sources spell it as "ennobled", so I will assume their Lordships ere in error.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their Lordships are never in error. I was at ENO's new Iolanthe last night, where we were reliably informed by the Earl of Mountararat that 'if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement whatever, it is the House of Peers.' But I digress. The added cites to the two footnotes are exactly what were wanted. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all this did happen in good King George's glorious day ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim edit

Excellent, can't find anything to criticise. Now, where did I put that Edward VIII sovereign? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Hey guv'nor can you spare us a few sovs? taking a look now .... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • His brilliant talent opened the doors of the capital's elite - "brilliant" struck me as a bit flowery (floury?) and possibly redundant...
  • The original, 1817, design had the saintly knight still bearing part of the broken spear. - I'd not have commas here...
  • When the Royal Mint was reconstructed in 1882 - "rebuilt" sounds more natural to my ears..
All above done.
  • How does a 1500s sovereign compare in buying value adjusted for inflation to the 1800s one? Presumably they are quite different..
I've added a bit on the high value of the 1500s one. I think the anecdote about it being used for salaries to 1914 puts the scale of value.
  • Is it worth having a note on the One pound (British coin) (ie. UK returning to coin again after note)- any stylistic carryover? Context/legacy?
There were certainly some jokes that the round pound, when introduced in 1983, should be called a Maggie, as it was hard, brassy, and thinks it's a sovereign ... I'm a bit reluctant.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otheriwse all in order I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I've done those things except as noted. And the Australian connection is still going, at least last time I was in Sydney there was a hanging sign with the Australian sovereign design for a coin dealer on Pitt Street (if I recall) between the pedestrian mall and the harbour ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think i know where that might be....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod edit

  • Interesting and good article. I have a few minor queries.
  • Since there are only 3 paras in the lead, maybe expand a little bit re Australian etc issues?
  • I found some of the stuff on the designs a bit lacking detail, or maybe precision:
    • "...who showed Pistrucci a model of Saint George and the Dragon by Nathaniel Marchant..." - Nathaniel Marchant was a specialist in engraved gems; was the "model" one? Was it a model in the modello sense, or a finished work just used as a model by Pistrucci? "cameo" should presumably link to Cameo (carving). The head of George III was also presumably also a cameo. Do we know what size it was, and does it survive? Presumably rather large if it had a very detailed crown. "...and the sculptor undertook the engraving of the dies himself." The process would not have involved much actual engraving, but maybe this is a standard term for die-making? Is it used by sources?
I've added that the model by Marchant was in wax, and so was a preliminary work; Clancy illustrates the final version. The head was a cameo, without a crown. I don't have the exact size, but it was coin-sized. It is in the Royal Mint Museum, though I don't recall seeing it on display when I was there last year. No sort of reducing lathe was in use at the Royal Mint, I believe that started with the William IV coinage, so it had to be coin-size. Yes, engraving, rather than die-sinking (the old term), is used by the sources.
  • "The original 1817 design had the saintly knight still bearing part of the broken spear." - "holding" or "carrying" seems more natural than "bearing". Just after, is a link to Garter (stockings) wanted? Perhaps.
  • "The George and Dragon design is in the neoclassical style." I think "neoclassical" should be capitalized here, and Neoclassicism just after.
  • "When the sovereign entered circulation in late 1817, ..." split this rather long para?
  • "...depicting the armorial bearings of Brunswick, Lüneburg and Celle. Lüneburg (former Hanseatic city) is ok, but Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Principality of Lüneburg are better links for the others - probably disamed to the plain name.
  • "Chancellors of the Exchequer had questioned the wisdom of having much of Britain's stock of gold used as a circulating coin" - reads awkwardly - just one gigantic coin? Maybe "used in circulating coins/coinage" or similar.
  • Link Gold reserve in this para or the next?

Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough comments, I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have - thanks. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Iridescent edit

  • I'll do a proper review when I get the chance, but something that immediately jumps out is no mention of sovereign rings, which—outside coin-collecting enthusiasts and readers of historical literature—is almost certainly the only context in which people in the present day ever encounter this coin. (Our own Sovereign ring article is terrible, but there must be sources somewhere for the story of how and why attaching bulky coins to the fingers became a part of the uniform of the Stella-drinking classes.) ‑ Iridescent 11:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, review: as there are a lot of recent changes being made, this is the version on which I'm commenting. I've not conducted any source/image spotchecks. These are all minor nitpicks and quibbles rather than deal-breaking issues.

  • Although the coin pictured in the infobox does have a data on the reverse, they should probably have the date in the caption as well to make it clear that this isn't the current design of the coin (the Gillick portrait pictured hasn't appeared on British currency for decades).
It still appears on Maundy money, actually. I'll add something. It was in that state when I began work on the article, and I did not think I could justify use of the current portrait when there is an extant portrait out of Crown Copyright. I suspect the Machin portrait (used on early decimal coins) is out of copyright as well, and surely will be on 1 January of next year, given it was used on 1968 10p and 5p coins, so some updating might be considered.
I'd be wary of using the Machin portrait; because it still appears on stamps, it may still be protected under prerogative powers of some kind regardless of its copyright status. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A name he [Henry VII] must have favoured, for he also called one of his warships Sovereign of the Seas seems like a bit of a jump; he had a warship called Trinity Sovereign (not Sovereign of the Seas which was a much later ship), but one could just as well say he favoured the name "Carvel of Ewe" (the first of his ships).
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • an indenture dated February 1817, directing the Royal Mint to strike gold coins weighing 7.988 grams—were the authorities on early 19th-century England really issuing instructions using metric measurements (at that time a peculiarity of French culture that hadn't yet spread elsewhere), and if so why? And if they genuinely were working in grams, why did they choose the ungainly 7.988 rather than a round 8?
No, all of this was in grains, see quote box for the tedious detail. If they had rounded to 8, then they would be changing the official price of gold. All the indenture did did was set forth specifications for a coin 20⁄21 the weight of the guinea, of the same 22 carat fineness. The diameter and thickness proved satisfactory as they have never been changed.
  • Do we have any idea why Pistrucci created the model for the coins in jasper, rather than a more traditional material like glass or agate? This is purely an "it would be nice to know".
"In preparing portraits for the last coinage of George III the Italian artist Benedetto Pistrucci cut original models in jasper which, as a gem engraver, was his natural medium. Three of these exquisitely prepared cameo portraits of George III survive in the Royal Mint Museum and the one pictured here looks to have been the basis for the bull-head effigy used on the half-crown." From here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lose the entire The sovereign also entered fiction… line. If by this point it was a standard circulating currency, then it would obviously be mentioned in works of fiction set in countries which used it; Dollar bill wouldn't say "The dollar bill also entered fiction, and was mentioned in A Fistful of Dollars".
I've modified the opener a bit, but I'm still inclined to keep it, as helping to illustrate how ordinary a circulating coin it once was (admittedly of high value).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was regarded as a circulating coin in dozens of British colonies and even in nations such as Brazil, Portugal and Egypt—I'd lose Egypt from that list, as in this period there were huge numbers of British personnel in Egypt building the Suez Canal (and from 1882, the place was under formal British military occupation) so it's unsurprising that British currency was circulating there.
  • The article talks at some length about gold currency during the First World War, but skips from 1937 to 1953; I understand why (Wilson wanted payment in gold for food and weapons, Roosevelt accepted promissory notes and fiat money) but it should probably at least get a one-liner to explain why gold coins had lost their relevance.
It doesn't skip that time; the 1925 sovereign was restruck under George VI. I'll look for something along the lines you've stated though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re The sovereign survived both decimalisation and the move of the Royal Mint from Tower Hill, London to Llantrisant, Wales, why is there any reason to think it wouldn't? The value of the pound wasn't affected by decimalisation, and the coinage didn't change when the Mint was relocated.
Well, as they weren't going to circulate, and the bullion market really didn't develop until the Krugerrand became problematic because of reaction against apartheid, why strike them at all?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • continued to be struck at London through 1917, 1989 through 1997, this went into use in 1998 and was used through 2015; "through" used in this sense is an Americanism which shouldn't be in a British article (the BrEng would be "until the end of 1917" etc).
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that In 2009, the reverse was re-engraved using tools from the reign of George III in the hope of better capturing Pistrucci's design is what the source says, but it sounds like purest bullshit made up by a bored intern in the Royal Mint's PR department. The tools in question would have endured 200 years of wear and corrosion; if the Mint had really wanted to replicate the conditions under which the Regency engravers were working, they'd have used brand new tools. This sentence would only make sense had Pistrucci done the original engravings using tools from around the time of the Mayflower.
I am not an expert on engraving tools and accordingly feel that we have to defer to the sources, which are consistent on this point (as they would be, since the relevant ones all derive from the Royal Mint or its associated museum).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere, it needs to explain why the Royal Mint so zealously guard the legal fiction that the sovereign is still legal tender; that as a theoretical EU circulating currency, the coins can be traded and transported without being subject to tax.
That one is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all very minor queries and quibbles, and nothing to prevent a support as it stands, although I do think that sovereign rings, and their particular place in chav culture, do need to be mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a good source on that, so far all I've come up with are the Daily Mirror and similar. I will confess I removed the "See also" to the ring it was, as you state, in a poor condition. Thank you for the review. I will work through these in the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that. Iridescent, I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

No ALT text anywhere. As an aside, source #97 looks broken to me on my screen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of those. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, is it said somewhere on coininvest what the license is? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Wehwalt, and this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose done.==Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing what? The ANS has released its images under the stated license, which is found at the bottom of each image page. "

All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a problem, because noncommercial licenses are only allowed as fair use images, and these in turn only in special circumstances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, swapped with a previous monarch. I think this one is pretty bulletproof. I'm traveling at present but when I get home, I'll photograph an Elizabeth II sovereign I have from the year of my birth. In the meantime, this should be adequate. I'll also have a word with the ANS, since they responded to my appeal for images of coins some months ago and tell them that the license isn't suitable.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John edit

Nice article. Only a few things to think about.

  • It had a diameter of some 42 millimetres (1.7 in), and weighed ... We don't need the "some", do we?
Coins of that era had some variation since they were hammered.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the Celtel and Gullbekk source, and this just gives 42 mm. What would the range in sizes be? If it's greater than ±0.5 mm then we should say "about"; if the tolerance is less than than that, just "42 mm" is the best descriptor. I never like using "some" to mean "approximately" (it's superfluous as almost all measurements are approximate, and the degree of inaccuracy is conveyed by using significant figures). It's also potentially confusing as it may also carry a connotation of "large". Of course in this case that would be accurate but it's a usage I dislike. --John (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at home right now, but as I recall it said c. 42 mm or a similar phrasing. It does not give a range. I suspect Coin World was working from the same sources ... very well, I'll cut the "some".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently, the wearing of a sovereign ring has been seen as a sign of chav culture. How recently was that? An actual date would be far better.
  • A number of the coin auction houses deal in rare sovereigns of earlier date, as do specialist dealers. A number? Zero is a number, and so are negative nine and pi. If we're not sure how many the number is, could we just say "some"? --John (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I've taken care of those, with slight variations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John, Wehwalt, can you confirm if we're all done here? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done everything asked of me, with the exception of those things I've explained should not be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. Support. Well done. --John (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always for the thorough review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2018 (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/Sovereign_(British_coin)/archive1&oldid=1138471873"