Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double sovereign/archive1

Double sovereign

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... another in the sovereign series, and a relatively obscure one which was rarely struck until they started minting them for collectors. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Support from AviationFreak

 * Suggest linking Coining (mint) as a pipe when "struck" is used in the first paragraph of the lead
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * - Suggest changing "Beginning" to "Since" or rewording to something along the lines of "Royal Mint began selling as a collector's coin in 1980", as the tenses here feel slightly mismatched.
 * Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Proof coinage is linked twice in the lead
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * - Who are the "speakers" here? I know that (at least today) Parliament is composed of "MPs" and "Lords" - is "speakers" some catchall term?
 * Clarified. Those who spoke in the debates.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Capitalization of "St. George and the Dragon" is mismatched between the lead and the body, and inconsistent throughout the article.
 * I've standardised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * - Might want to be explicit that the bust is on the obverse since the reverse is explicitly mentioned, unless this is standard numismatic phrasing.
 * I don't see Wellesley-Pole's initials with Pistrucci's on the reverse in the image?
 * The source says it is in very small letters at the ground line above the broken spear, and I have no reason to doubt it, but I just looked at the image and I don't see it, so I've deleted that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Appears that "1823" was added to the reverse of that coin; perhaps mentioning in prose.
 * Is the ellipsis intended in the translation of "GEORGIUS IV DEI GRATIA"?
 * Yes, because it continues onto the reverse.


 * - I believe an "and" should be inserted at the beginning of the clause about the 1825 issue, or this should be otherwise reworded to flow a little better.
 * Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * More duplinking of proof coin in the body
 * I've gone through that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * - Huh?
 * Oops. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggest linking Mint mark
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That's all I have. A fun read, my only other comment would be that the images could be a little smaller and still be readable. Thanks for the great article! AviationFreak💬 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All done and images shrunk. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Prose Support.

Image review
All images seem to be appropriately licensed and captioned. The only qualms I have are slight: the coin infobox seemingly does not allow for ALT text; and I am not confident in the licensing of File:1991 double sovereign with box.jpg, although I believe Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International should be enough to cover it. Let me know if I have missed anything; otherwise, this should be a pass for the image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
A handful of quibbles, none of which affect my support:
 * William IV double sovereign
 * "In 1831 a proof coin of this denomination was produced part of the proof set" – missing an "as"?
 * "William IV by the grace of God king of the Britians" – typo, I think. It's "the Britains" elsewhere.


 * Victorian and early 20th century issues
 * "According to numismatist G. P. Dyer" – I don't press the point but in a BrE article the false title is better avoided, and a definite article before "numismatist" would be a kindness.
 * "Church Times stated" – I think that too could do with a definite article. (But how pleasing to see The Church Times showing a nice twinkly sense of humour.)
 * "minimize the changes to the coinage, and no change was made" – "–ize" is not wrong in BrE, but "–ise" is more usual these days. And "changes ... change" in close proximity could advantageously be tweaked to avoid repetition, perhaps?

That's my lot. Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Particularly wonderful illustrations, even by the high standard of Wehwalt's series of numismatic articles.  Tim riley  talk   17:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. All done. Yes, the images are great. Heritage Auctions and the permissions people have been most kind in letting me go through Heritage's web site for images and upload them. It's gone a long way towards solving the image problems that we've had in the past. Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp
Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. I enjoyed this article. I have not so many comments.
 * "Almost every speaker in the parliamentary debates supported having a coin valued at twenty shillings, rather than continuing to use the guinea, valued at twenty-one shillings." / "One reason for the introduction of gold coinage based on the sovereign was that its value, equal to one pound sterling, was more convenient than the guinea, equal to twenty-one shillings." I found this a bit repetitive. I felt the reason for the support was already implied in the first mention.
 * Fair enough, cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Pistrucci had refused to adapt the work of another artist." I got confused about the context of this. Does this mean no other artist than Merlen/Chantey, which is why Merlen/Chantey's design was chosen? Or no other artist than Pistrucci, meaning Chantey's design was chosen despite Pistrucci's earlier refusal?
 * I've made that clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there information why George VI refused George V's request for the set of pattern coins? Since no more info is given in the article, I was left wondering whether George VI just thought it would be inappropriate, or whether the two had a bad relationship, or another reason... Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source mentions an exchange of letters. I couldn't find the text online. Various other sources seem to be based on the one I used, and also mention the letters. The Daily Mail (not that I'd use it as a source) seems to conflate the letters with the fact that these Edward VIII pieces were never proclaimed legal tender, but there's no other indication that was the reason for not giving Edward a set. Obviously the relationship between George and Edward was fraught for a number of reasons that are well-known, but I'd only be speculating if I said that was the reason for refusing.
 * Thanks for the review and glad you liked it. I hope you're doing well. All's well here, I'm happy to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've read through again and it all looks very good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Formatting and consistency: Spotchecks to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The short citations refer to "Spink 2022a" and "Spink 2022b", but the long citations are "Spink & Son Ltd (2023)" and "Spink & Son Ltd (2022)", so something needs tidying up there.
 * Short ref #30 has a couple of formatting issue: it mixes DMY and MDY date formats, and has a stray ")" in the publisher field.
 * Short ref #42 should have an endash in the title, rather than a hyphen, per our MOS.
 * Be consistent whether titles use sentence case or title case. At the moment, short refs #17 and #30 use title case, while the other short refs seem to use sentence case. This also applies to the long refs.
 * In the long references, be consistent regarding location format, at the moment there is a mix of "City, Country", "City" and "City, County". Pick one and use it throughout.
 * "Skellern, Stephen (October 2013)" could do with volume and issue numbers.
 * Generally, all journals and magazines could do with ISSNs if known.


 * Done all that except ISSNs. If you know a way to conveniently look up and add them I will. Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:
 * Ref #16 is a quote attributed to "Dyer, p. 73." The quote appears in the source and is properly attributed to avoid and copyvio concerns.
 * Ref #21 is used for a quote cited to "Stocker, p. 135." However, the quote does not appear in the source material. I believe it should be cited instead to "Lant, p. 135."
 * Ref #25, the second use of "Stocker" checks out all fine.
 * Ref #30 is doing a lot of work; but all the content quoted appears in the source given, with no close para-phrasing or copyvio concerns.

Nothing major to tidy up here. I've also conducting searches on Google, Amazon, JSTOR and a couple of other journals I have access to, and no glaring omissins present themselves. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed that. I added that quote late and obviously went to the wrong PDF.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all looks good to me, I'm happy to mark the source review as a pass. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)