Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the British penny (1901–1970)/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) 02:41, 3 July 2017.

History of the British penny (1901–1970)

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC),

This article is about... a coin that made pockets heavier than they are today, but nevertheless iconic for its portrayal of Britannia. This is about its final seventy years or so, including the great rarity of 1933. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Nicely done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed. I've played with one or two of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two changes I see look good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

A nice piece of work! Some initial comments:


 * "saw the final years of its striking as a large, non-decimal coin" - I found this clunky as a the very first sentence of the lead. It didn't flow well for me.
 * I've played with it.


 * "the obverse of the bronze coin" - "obverse" is clearly the right word for a numismatic article, but it isn't a common term outside the field. I'd have advised "the obverse, or front, of the bronze coin" on first use, particularly since it is in the lead.
 * I've linked and called it heads.


 * "they were coined principally to be placed beneath foundation stones" - "principally" doesn't quite fit with the main text, which says that only 3 were coined for that purpose, and between 4 and 7 for use in museums.
 * There are only two in museums. The remaining pieces, the provenance is a bit uncertain. Royal Mint employees of long standing were sometimes presented with proof coins and there is speculation that may have been the source. But we don't know. In any event, three struck for foundation stones, two for the museums, and two unknown, well, given that these might not exist at all but for the need for foundation coins, I think the language is justified.
 * The main text, though, currently says "the Mint struck three 1933 pennies for this purpose, plus a small number of additional pieces for its own museum and for the British Museum", and then clarifies that the "small number" is between four and seven, and is probably four - which still means that the three 1933 pennies for foundations are in the minority of those struck, with those struck for the museums in the majority. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been more explicit on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * While on the 1933 story... "by thieves who managed to remove the set of coins from beneath the church" - this implies we've already told the reader about a set of coins - we've only mentioned a single coin, though, the 1933 penny.
 * The reader's been told the King placed sets of coins under the buildings. The entire set was stolen from under that church, not merely the penny.


 * "as it was claimed" - unclear by who was doing the claiming from context - newspapers? collectors? the public?
 * It seems the public, at least by implication. Tweaked.


 * Worth checking the capitalisation of "king" and "queen" against the MOS advice at MOS:JOBTITLES - there are quite a few instances where the MOS requires capitalisation.
 * By going to title case in the translated Latin, I think we're good there.
 * Still not done: as per the MOS, where "king" refers to a specific king, it should be capitalised - e.g. "on the King's death", as the term is a substitute for Edward VII's own name. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, should be good now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Referencing: fn 19, 27 etc. put Coin News and Numismatic articles in long format in the footnotes; Skellern's articles in Coin News are cited in short form, with the article in the bibliography. The referencing style needs to be internally consistent.
 * Done.


 * Mintages section needs citation.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is "The Old Currency Exchange" a reliable source? (open question, but there doesn't seem to be a name of a real-world author, and it appears self-published)
 * Coin dealers are reputable professionals in the field and I think (where not self-promotional) can be cited within their field of expertise, in my view. We freely cite other commercial enterprises, after all.


 * Bibliography: "Lobel, Richard, ed" needs a location and publisher; you should probably be consistent on whether you prefer Ltd or Limited. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think we got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , can I just double check that you've completed your review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "and remained with some modification until the year of the king's death," - capitalisation of "king"
 * " officials at the Royal Mint planned for the new coinage, to bear the image of her son and successor, Edward VII" - I had to read this twice, as the comma after coinage initially looks like an error (it isn't, but it feels that way until you get to the end of the sentence)
 * "the three billion pennies in circulation" in 1936 - I'd advise against using "billion" whereever possible - there are traditional US/UK differences, and the UK government changed the version of "billion" it used in 1975; spelling it out as £3,000 million (it that's what meant) would be safer) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it just means the sheer number of pennies. I've gone to 3,000,000,000 though if anyone wanted to change it to 3,000 million I would not object. The other two things I've adjusted.  On the first one, I feel that if I move up "Edward VII" in the sentence, then I wind up having to explain that they were expected to have his image on them, which in theory may not be known to the reader. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * Current ref 21 is "Coin News June 2014, p. 29" which appears to be referring to ""Edward VII Uniface Penny". Coin News: 26. June 2014." - can we make this consistent so it's easy to find if the article is ever printed out?
 * Same issue for current ref 37 "The Numismatist April 1968, p. 472" which appears to be ""Late World Coin News: Great Britain". The Numismatist: 472. April 1968."
 * Same issue for current ref 19 "The Numismatist July 2016, p. 29" which appears to be ""Pretty Penny". The Numismatist: 29. July 2016."
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent". Each article is less than a page and does not have a listed author.   That is why they are listed by the publication name.  I'll check the variation in the page number.
 * They are listed in the bibliography with title first, but the shortened footnotes list them by publication - this is the problem, it makes it more difficult to see which long citation corresponds to the short footnote, especially if the article is printed out. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is current ref "Bermuda" meant to be the "Bermuda Monetary Authority"?
 * Are the refs to "Coincraft" supposed to be corresponding to "Lobel, Richard, ed. (1999) [1995]. Coincraft's Standard Catalogue English & UK Coins 1066 to Date (5th ed.). London: Standard Catalogue Publishers Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9526228-8-8."? Because that's confusing, since we have an author.
 * We have an editor. Coin collectors, anyway, are more likely to know it by the name Coincraft, which is a prominent London coin dealer that issued the catalog.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But the same issue applies here - non-coin collectors or people who print out the article are going to be confused and it makes it more difficult to connect the short footnote to the proper long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is "Rodgers, Kerry (December 2016). "Fiji's World War II Emergency Reserve Bank of New Zealand Overprints". Coin News: 75–79." used in the article? I can't find it under "Coin News" or "Rodgers".
 * Ref 25.--00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes https://oldcurrencyexchange.com/2014/08/20/rare-coins-the-1933-british-penny/ a high quality reliable source?
 * In my view, coin dealer's sites, where not unduly self promotional, can be used for such. We use, after all, many other professionals..
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm less certain on this one (as per my review above) - we don't seem to know who the author is and it is self-published by a website. I'd be much happier if there was evidence of this website being held in particular regard by the community etc. (I have no idea if it is or not, btw). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://robertleach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Quick-guide-to-legal-tender-2.pdf a high quality reliable source?
 * It seems to be a high-powered British accountancy firm, with the publication for the use of clients and others.
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On this one, I think it looks reliable from a wiki perspective; the named author is governed by an accountancy profession; he's a former examiner of the Institute of Financial Management; etc. - while the article may not be peer reviewed and is self-published, the author's profession and role is subject to oversight, and he's held in high regard by it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You have two refs with the exact same ISBN. "978-0-900652-74-5" is given for both Seaby and Linecar. According to WorldCat - Linecar is actually "9780713519310".
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. [ Earwig's tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=History+of+the+British+penny+%281901–1970%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0] shows no copyright violations, but there are a couple of phrases highlighted that might need a bit of rephrasing to avoid too close paraphrasing.
 * I suspect they copied from us, as this article was stable for a long time. But I'll massage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise
I have a couple of George V pennies in my childhood coin collection, so I was quite interested to read this article. OK, onto the issues: More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead: "Only seven 1933 pennies were struck." The main text says "certainly fewer than ten and probably seven". Change the lead to "fewer than ten" or something else that sounds less definitive? Moisejp (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Only pattern coins were struck for the United Kingdom bearing Edward VIII's likeness; they are very rare and dated 1937." May I suggest reordering the sentence so that Edward VIII is closer to the beginning of the sentence and his name makes more impact? Currently, the transition between kings feels possibly too subtle.
 * I've gone to the number known on the 1933. and addressed Edward. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead:
 * "Although commerce did not require them, pennies bearing the likeness of Elizabeth II were minted in 1953, using an obverse design by Mary Gillick. One 1954 penny was struck, for internal Mint purposes." I feel the first sentence doesn't fully capture what is in the main text, and the transition between the first and second sentence could be better. Would something like the following work: "A limited number of pennies bearing the likeness of Elizabeth II were minted in 1953—using an obverse design by Mary Gillick—but these were only released as specimen sets, not for general circulation. Likewise, only one 954 penny was struck, for internal Mint purposes." I'm not sure if you like my use of em dashes there, but I was just trying to reduce the number of commas that would otherwise be needed in the sentence. Moisejp (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits so far. I hope to continue my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (minor suggestion) "The death of de Saulles in 1903 had led to the abolition of the post of Engraver, and coins for George V, who took the throne on Edward's death in 1910, were subject to a design competition won by Bertram Mackennal, who also prepared the medal for the Coronation." Suggest "The death of de Saulles in 1903 led to" (no had, which seems unnecessary here).
 * But we're backing up seven years into the past reign to discuss this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misread the timeline. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "No coins of King Edward VIII (1936) were officially issued, but a penny does exist, dated 1937. Technically, it is a pattern coin, one produced for official approval which it would probably have been due to receive about the time that the King abdicated." Is "technically" necessary here? What if you just said up front in the first sentence that it was a pattern coin. In the previous section, the four 1933 pattern coins produced are treated separately from the seven regular pennies known to exist. In this section, the use of "technically" sounds like the article is trying to have it both ways and say that it is a penny, but it's not really a penny. Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've eliminated the word "Technically," and changed "official" for "royal", which is the word the source uses. Yes, it is not really a "penny" in that it was never made current by royal proclamation.
 * OK. Looks good. Moisejp (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "When the Royal Mint's Advisory Committee were considering the question of new designs for King Edward's coinage, they did not favour a new look for the penny. Rather, they sought the return of the lighthouse and ship, seen in the distance on either side of Britannia on pre-1895 pennies, but with the sailing ship seen on Victorian pennies replaced with a modern warship. Officials felt this too aggressive at a delicate international time". I understand the Advisory Committee wanted a warship while officials didn't. Does "officials" mean government officials, and is it clear what part they played in these decisions (did they outright veto it, or did they just suggest it—how did the decision process work?). If you don't have that information, or if you feel it is clear enough, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all a bit vague. As Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, anything's possible. Two or three sources mention this generally, but none gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK.

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The old bronze penny was given no place as decimal currency was planned in the 1960s". Feels a bit awkward to me. Just a suggestion, but how about "The old bronze penny was not included in the decimal currency (that was) planned in the 1960s" (with or without "that was" as you see fit).
 * I've played with it, a bit differently. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All my concerns are addressed. Happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Some of these comments may have been raised or superseded in earlier reviews. I've only managed the lead so far. First, though, a few general points:
 * The article title defines it as a history of the British penny from 1901 to 1970. OK, but the fact that the penny existed long before 1901 should be made much more explicit in your opening paragraph, rather than the somewhat casual reference to an "earlier penny" and the later mentions of the Victorian version.
 * I don't think this point has been addressed satisfactorily. There is nothing in this opening statement to indicate that the British penny is of very ancient vintage and that the subject of this article is merely its final manifestation. The phrase "based on the earlier penny..." is misleading as it implies a single predecessor. My suggestion is to rephrase the opening sentence, perhaps thus: "The British penny ($1/240$ of a pound sterling), was a large pre-decimal coin with a long history of circulation in many forms, which was struck intermittently during the 20th century until its final withdrawal after 1970" – and also change "and based on the earlier penny by his father William Wyon" to "based on an earlier design by his father William Wyon". Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if we're going to tell the reader who likely has no experience of any penny but the current, how old it is, we ought to do so directly. Accordingly, I've cited the fact in the lede sentence. Let me know what you think of how it is phrased.==Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy with your treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking for the best source on this ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had further thoughts about the sentence "The reverse design had in 1895 been modified by Engraver of the Royal Mint George William de Saulles." This seems to be a an incidental snippet – do we need to know this at this point? Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to draw a baseline. The 1895 revision removed the lighthouse and ship, which (to my mind anyway) is the most obvious distinction among the variations on the reverse. This is why the coin looked as it did in 1901. One idea is to directly mention the removal of the ship and lighthouse.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm happy not to pursue this further. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe it's the case that on coins the  monarch's head faces alternatively right and left on changes of reign (Ed7 right, GV left, Ed8 right [would have been], G6 left, E2 right)   If this is so it might be worth a mention somewhere in the article if not in the lead - I'm sure some source covers it.
 * It is mentioned under Edward VIII.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In her review I thought Ealdgyth might have queried the reliability of the Daily Express as a   source. These days, sad to say, the former Beaverbrook flagship has become a ludicrous tabloid rag, and I wouldn't accept anything it prints as reliable. It's in the same category, or worse, as the Daily Mail which I believe is more or less officially shunned by WP, as are the Sun, the Daily Mirror and their various Sunday counterparts.
 * She would have, no doubt, but I added it as replacement for a source that was questioned, earlier today. I will search for a further replacement source.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the D. Ex replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead
 * First mention of "Victoria" should be to "Queen Victoria" and linked
 * "There are two varieties of the 1902 penny, with the difference in the water level on either side of Britannia; they are referred to as "high tide" and "low tide"." This is surely overdetailing here. Include it elsewhere, but it's not a leadworthy fact.
 * "Only seven 1933 pennies are known to have been struck. Commerce did not require more pennies; three were coined to be placed beneath foundation stones, from which one was stolen in 1970, with the other four known pieces used for museums or other purposes." This is a bit clumsy and muddled. I think the intended sense is "Because there were already sufficient pennies in circulation, only seven were struck in 1933. Of these, three were placed beneath foundation stones and the others placed in museums". I'd questiion whether even that pared-down version isn't overdoing the detail for lead purposes. Perhaps leave it as " Because there were already sufficient pennies in circulation, only seven were struck in 1933" and put the detail in the text.
 * Because it is something of a famous rarity, I think it deserves a little space. I've used a variation of your first suggestion.


 * "Pennies were struck again, in large numbers, beginning in 1961". A brief mention as to why, after so long a gap, would be helpful
 * There are a few prose infelicities in the lead that I'd probably alter, and I might do the odd tweak later.

More comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. If I haven't responded, I've addressed the matter (I will look for the infelicities).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All these OK. Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Further comments:


 * Edward VII (pennies struck 1902–1910)


 * "...it was decided not to alter the reverses of the three bronze coins (the penny, halfpenny and farthing), as a new portrait of the Queen had been introduced in 1895." This does not seem like logical reasoning; a change in the Queen's portrait doesn't affect the reverse design. I suggest a simplification of the paragraph: "...it was decided not to alter the reverses of the three bronze coins (the penny, halfpenny and farthing), but to retain the 1895 design in which the Engraver of the Royal Mint, George William de Saulles, had modified Leonard Charles Wyon's depiction of Britannia—the lighthouse and sailing ship that had flanked her were removed."
 * "The British public had always been averse to changes in the coinage and the "Old Head" [of Victoria] coinage had been in use for so few years, it was inevitable that the new Edwardian coinage should make as few changes to the reverses as possible on the ground of expediency. ... The Annual Report of the Royal Mint for 1901 in contemplating changes for the new reign said that 'the changes of the reverses should be limited in number ...' ... It was not desirable to make any changes in the reverses of the bronze coinage (in view of the 1895 changes, particularly the withdrawal of the ship and the lighthouse introduced in 1860)." Possibly your ancestors were more averse to having the 50p coin (had they such a thing) used to advertise all the Olympic sports.


 * I'd add years to the 20 August and 10 December dates
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph appears to equate "technical standards" with metallic composition – this follows from the use of a mid-sentence colon. Perhaps: "Edward's penny is of the same technical standards as the final Victorian issues, and of the same composition: 95 percent copper, 4 percent tin and 1 percent zinc."
 * I've addressed it a bit differently.
 * George V (struck 1911–1936)


 * "...from 1922, those earlier coins no longer had to be in worn condition" – ambiguous as worded. I'm not sure what is intended - that worn pre-1895 coins were no longer accepted as currency, or that the PO/banks etc would accept the return of any of the older coins, worn or not?
 * "31 millimetres": In the previous section you gave the primary measurement in inches, with the mm conversion. You should be consistent.
 * In what way were the concerns outlined in the paragraph beginning "By the end of George's reign..." addressed, if indeed they were?
 * 1933 rarity


 * "There was no need for the Mint to produce any pennies in 1933 because they were not needed in commerce...": clumsy (need/needed). Suggest reword "they were not needed in commerce" → "there was no demand from commerce". And "ample stocks" rather than just "ample"
 * The "University of London" is not a building, and could not have coins placed under it. It's like saying that a coin was placed under Oxford University. I imagine you mean Senate House, the London University's administrative HQ in Malet Street which was started at that time, but it might be worth double-checking from sources where the coin actually is.
 * That's where it supposedly is, though I see one source that suggests it is actually deep under it.


 * Re: "important new buildings": it's not clear why the two Leeds churches should both be honourd in this way and given the rare coin. There must have been dozens of significant buildings begun in 1933, so why choose two suburban churches?
 * I wondered that myself. The sources do not address it specifically, but the incumbent Bishop of Ripon had a slight royal connection.
 * Very slight - he was a King's Chaplain, a fairly routine church honour for bishops and suchlike. But never mind. I have done a little rewriting of this paragraph, which on further reading proved difficult to reconcile with what's in the Starck source (I sympathise - Starck is a terrible writer). Incidentally, there is no mention in the source of the king placing the Senate House coin, so that fact needs a separate source if it's to stay. By all means play with my wording further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Peck says under "the new buildings" of the University dedicated on 26 June 1933, I've identified that with the Senate House in the second ref I've added. There's no mention of him dedicating multiple buildings, so I think I can get by with these two additional sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edward VIII pattern (dated 1937)


 * "...one produced for official approval which it would probably have been due to receive about the time that the King abdicated": official approval by whom? The monarch? The mint?
 * George VI (struck 1937–1952)


 * The first paragraph, or most of it, seems more properly to belong to the Edward VIII section, since it is mainly to do with modifications intended for Edward's stillborn coinage. Some adjustment advised.
 * Pedant's point: India gained its independence in August 1947. It took the coiners time to catch up.
 * More that it took time for a new set of royal abbreviations to be proclaimed. I think the existing language is OK.


 * "varies with the source" – I wouldn't put it like that, which might confuse readers. "Various raesons for the wartime break in coining of pennies have been given, with the 2000 edition... " etc. Or some such, precise wording for you to decide.
 * "the Mint reverted itself in 1959" – sounds like a bit of inadvertent Wikipediaspeak. I'd prefer "In 1959 the Mint resumed manufacture of pennies using the wartime alloy..."
 * Some additional artful linking possible, e.g. brass threepence coin, silver threepenny bit. This requires a little ingenuity.
 * Some of the stuff in the final paragraph is not really related to the George VI era, which ended in 1952.
 * I think the material related to the 1950 and 1951 pennies should stay in one place. It would look out of place if we moved it to the Elizabethan era..
 * Elizabeth II and end of series (1953–1970)


 * "The old bronze penny was given no place as decimal currency was planned in the 1960s". I'm not sure what you mean by "given no place", although it's fairly obvious that a coin worth $1/240$ could not be incorporated into a decimal system.
 * There were at least some proposals that the new currency be based on the existing penny, though it likely would have been shrunk. But the Bank of England wanted the pound unaltered due to its status as a reserve currency. I don't think there's a problem with the phrasing, but am open to alternatives.


 * Final para: give a year for 31 August.

That's me done. You're not of course obliged to accept all my suggest prose amendments. I've done a little minor copyediting, too. Nice to see Wehwalt's expertise deployed on a more familiar coin (which, I'm sad to say, I remember well). Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. I never had to use the "old money" for real, absent the shillings and florins that still circulated my first two or three UK visits.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: I think the article has benefitted from these adjustments, and I'm happy to support its elevation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so too. Thank you very much for your thorough review and support.--Wehwalt (talk)

Comments from Ceoil
Mostly light-weight from an initial read. Will be supporting.
 * also saw use in - were issued in
 * had in 1895 been - was modified in 1895 by
 * I feel that by going back to before the timespan of this article, that "had" is justified.

More to follow. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd break this sentence at "and following"; . "Following..."
 * there were already sufficient pennies - don't need 'already'
 * From 1941 to 1943, during the Second World War - swap order - During the Second World War period of 1941 to 1943
 * Thank you. Except as noted, I've either done as you suggested or played with it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * began to plan - planned. You don't plan a plan
 * A number of new coin designs had been introduced in the 1890s - a number of designs were...
 * had been introduced to them in 1895 drop 'to them'
 * Nevertheless...would cause. Don't think 'Nevertheless' is right; 'would cause' should be past tense
 * final Victorian issues, 95 percent copper - Maybe a semicolon after 'issues' Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I put in a colon. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've look at a few of the authors used as sources, including Dr. Michael Freeman, H W A Linecar, and Peter Seaby. All first rank. Its a Support from me. As a side note, I wasn't around for pre-decimal coinage but do remember my mother complaining about the confusing new coins in the 70s. More confusing than 1⁄240 of a pound sterling? Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thank you. I guess if it's what you've used all your life  ... there are some films out there showing Granny learning to use the new system ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:1936 George V penny.jpg: License may need to indicate the copyright status of the photo the current template only discusses the coin, use is OK.
 * This has come up before, and the response I got at MCQ was that the act of uploading your own image to Wikipedia indicates an intent to license it with the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * File:British Pennies.JPG: License and use seem OK.
 * File:1933 Pattern Penny.jpg: License and use seem OK.
 * File:Reverse plaster model for penny 1937.jpeg: License and use seem OK.
 * File:British pre-decimal penny 1963 obverse.png: License and use seem OK.
 * File:1970 British proof set.jpeg: A wee many derivative works incorporated here with no copyright status mentioned. Use seems fine.
 * What do you suggest here, ? It is difficult to photograph just the set (every coin would be crown copyright expired) because of glare, so I included the case and paperwork.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am mostly concerned about the text. And maybe that artful font on the front of the passport (?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, you could trim the image from the left to remove the copyright text? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to get the lighting right on the coins. I'm going to cut it for now.  If I add it back it will just be the coin set, but getting all the coins clear and without glare or the phone's shadow showing is proving to be a challenge.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most images don't have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cut the problem image and added alt text. Thank you for the review. and Hchc2009, for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.