Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourpence (British coin)/archive1

Fourpence (British coin)

Featured article candidates/Fourpence (British coin)/archive1

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The infobox images need ALT text.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 750 h+ 03:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]