Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the British farthing/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2017.

History of the British farthing

 * Nominator(s): Arwel Parry (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin small in value but still a source of interest today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I'm sure I'll be supporting the promotion of this article, but a few minor drafting points first. That's my small clutch of comments. I look forward to returning to add my support in due course. –  Tim riley  talk    13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "under license" – I know from dealing with old legal documents in Crown archives when I worked for a living that the noun was often spelt "license" in the nineteenth century and earlier, but it isn't now, and we need "licence" here. "License" is reserved for the verb.
 * "demonitised" – I can find no authority for this spelling, and would have changed it myself to the usual "demonetised" were it not for a lurking worry that it might be a specialist numismatic spelling I (not to mention the Oxford English Dictionary) knew nothing about. (It comes up again in "Victorian farthings" in the main text.)
 * Early issues (1714–1775)
 * "according to numismatic writer Kerry Rodgers" – clunky false title, not becoming in formal BrE. The addition of a definite article will remedy the fault.
 * "King George died, and his son King George II took the throne" – "took" sounds a bit like a coup d'état. Perhaps "came to" or "acceeded to"?
 * Soho and renewed regal issues (1799–1837)
 * Header: if one goes back to the lead one sees mention that Boulton's mint was in Soho, but there's no mention of Soho in the whole of the present section, and so the header looks rather strange.
 * "Boulton was given a license" – as in the lead: the noun should be "licence"
 * "Sir Francis Chantrey" – it looks a bit odd that Sir Isaac Newton has his Sir included in the blue link but poor old Chantrey doesn't.
 * Victorian farthings
 * "the old copper farthing was demonitised …the Mint would still accept them" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
 * Twentieth century and abolition (1902—1956)
 * The dash in the date ranges in the header and the first line of text has gone from en-dash (approved by the MoS) to em-dash (not approved)
 * Titles of monarchs: earlier monarchs are shown as, e.g. King William IV, but from this point, they are shorn of their job title, and are just George V etc. I slightly prefer the latter style, but whichever you choose it should be consistent throughout.
 * "Sir Bertram Mackenna" – another unfortunate knight deprived of his Sir in his piping.
 * "Deputy Master of the Mint Robert Johnson" – could do with a definite article before "Deputy" and a comma after "Mint".
 * "and the farthing was discontinued after 1956." – for clarity, perhaps "and production of the farthing was discontinued after 1956"?
 * Thank you for those helpful comments. I have implemented them, though I have chosen to take Sir Isaac's title outside the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good! I'm glad to add my support here. I wonder how many other of your supporters will ever have owned a farthing, as I did? They were already so rarely seen when I was a little boy in the late 1950s that one held on to those few that came one's way once in a blue moon. I always liked the wren motif. –  Tim riley  talk    19:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and support ... and I appreciate the firsthand information about the time ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Today I got a 1944 wren farthing, a "young Victoria" penny, and an "old Victoria" penny at a flea market all for $6—cheap thrills! Moisejp (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review
All images appear to be properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1714, 1719, and 1946 coin images don’t seem to have alt text; it would be nice for consistency if they did. Also, the 1719 template seems irregular and possibly unnecessarily cumbersome when compared with the formatting of the 1714 and 1946 ones; in any case, it seems inconsistent. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Still working on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are now done, excepting the gallery, which I'm not clear if alt text can be added to.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim
Tim's review left slim pickings for the rest of us. One comment: I think you need a gloss for "exergue". The current link is just far too cumbersome. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fixed, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
(I always liked the wren motif too...) - looking now..


 * The two-sentence slim para at the top of the lead always bothers me when I see it...but I can see the rationale for having it (sort of). In this case I don't know why the lead is not in chronological order. I have reorganised like this but reverted so you could muse on it.
 * I've adopted a modification of your language.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Early issues (1714–1775) section needs some background - the first sentence just sorta launches into, "Issuance of farthings had not been necessary during most of the reign of Queen Anne (1701–1714) due to a surplus" - which leaves me thinking, "wuh? did I miss something here" - so I look at Farthing (English coin)....forgetting momentarily about the act of union in 1707. Which then got me thinking, (a) do people see these as two completely separate coins despite having the same name? (I have no expertise in the area so I genuinely don't know), in which case (b) should this article be at British farthing rather than its current title? The two articles could be combined and still be much under 50 kb prose....
 * There were also Scottish ones ... most of the coin articles seem to break at the Act of Union. I didn't have anything to do with setting it up that way but I think that's a fair enough way to do it.


 * Newton also died in 1727. Croker engraved the new King's head for the coinage; the Britannia design was not changed - these sentences are a tad short - can we link as, "As Newton had also died in 1727, Croker engraved the new King's head for the coinage, leaving the Britannia design unchanged" ?
 * Done a bit differently.


 * The rest reads well.


 * I wonder if there is anything that can be added on what one could buy with a farthing in the 18th century as reading it I have no idea what it is worth (not sure if this is actionable though)
 * I didn't find anything specifically on the 18th century, but I've added more on what it could buy in the 19th and 20th.


 * Anything on nostalgia/popular culture - odd collections after it ceased to be legal tender etc. Rare ones that are valued highly now?
 * I'm not putting collecting in the history articles, with the exception of outstanding rarities like the 1933 penny. That seems better suited to the article on the denomination, whereas this is more chronological. I think that' everything. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have no idea about the uber-rarities. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * O-kay, all looks in order comprehensiveness and prose-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I like the wren too.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Moise
Early issues (1714–1775):
 * "But beginning in 1713, there was a shortage of copper coin (the halfpenny and farthing). This planned issue of farthings was thwarted by the death of the Queen the next year." Feels like a bit of a jump from "there was a shortage" to "This planned issue". I'd expect to see the plan stated more explicitly before seeing "This planned issue".
 * "Newton had strong views about the quality of the coinage, and the Anne farthing is a considerable advance on that of William III." The second half seems quite subjective. How about something like "and coin expert Richard Lobel has argued that..." (although I see he was just the editor of the book, and may not have written the relevant passage?).
 * "Both obverse showed left-facing heads of King George and the inscription GEORGIVS II REX[b] on the obverse, and Britannia with the inscription BRITANNIA and the date in the exergue." Should it be "Both obverses"? Should "on the obverse" later in the sentence be removed? Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Soho and renewed regal issues (1799–1837):
 * "The farthing was produced in 1831, and 1834–1837, the last the year of King William's death." I suggest removing "the last" or changing "death" to "reign".

Victorian farthings:
 * "In 1859, the government decided the poor state of the copper coinage demanded its withdrawal,[21] Bronze was deemed a suitable replacement,[22] Parliament passed legislation in 1860 that allowed the penny, halfpenny and farthing to be struck from an alloy of metals." I don't think this was meant to be one long sentence (?) but I leave it to you to break up as you like. Moisejp (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Twentieth century and abolition (1902–1956):
 * "The obverse inscription was ELIZABETH II DEI GRA BRITT OMN REGINA F D[l] in 1953, and ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA F D." Is there supposed to be a specification of the years for ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA F D or is it all non-1953 years?

Those are all my comments. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. I've addressed those comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your changes all look good. Moisejp (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.