Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quarter sovereign/archive1

Quarter sovereign

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... the smallest coin in the sovereign range. It doesn't have as long a history as the others, but there's still something to be said about its history, both in the 19th century and more recently.Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Generalissima
Oh finally, another numismatics article! I'm happy I get to do a review for one of these. Good work so far on your coinage escapades on-wiki, I will do my best to look this over.

Images:


 * File:Quarter_sovereign_designs.jpg isn't a very good quality image; BNJ scans are notoriously low-resolution, especially noticeable on an image such as this. I would instead suggest using Template:Mim and the photographs of the two patterns available at the American Numismatic Society's website (here and here). They're high resolution and explicitly public domain; the ANS' online collections are great for finding decent photographs of rare coinage.
 * Swapped. I hadn't realized that ANS had released its images. I also have access to Heritage Auctions as a special permission for me and one other editor, let me know if you ever need anything from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair use images of the modern Quarter Sovereign proof are good.

Prose:


 * Lede:
 * I would suggest linking sovereign in the lede.
 * Done.


 * I would also suggest mentioning the coin is gold in the lede, since this would not be initially apparent to a reader unfamiliar with British coinage.
 * Done.


 * "In 1853, Royal Mint had produced two patterns for a quarter sovereign for circulation use, one denominated as five shillings, but these coins never went into production, in part due to concerns about their small size and the likely wear in circulation." This sentence has a number of problems.
 * Done.


 * "In 1853, Royal Mint" - Missing "the" before Royal Mint here.
 * "quarter sovereign for circulation use" seems a bit clunky to me. I'd just say "for circulation", where it would presumably be used.
 * "quarter sovereign... one denominated as five shillings." So is it a quarter sovereign? British coinage is no stranger to different denominations with the same value, as another notable five-shilling coin would attest. The aforementioned ANA entry describes the latter as a five-shilling piece, not a quarter sovereign. (Hocking's royal mint catalogue does describe it as a quarter-sovereign pattern, however, so this might be a moot point.)
 * Since Dyer describes it both a quarter sovereign, I think we're safe here. And since the sovereign was supposed to be equal to the gold pound, with the shilling the silver subsidiary unit that had a limited legal tender, it seems more proper. I can think of several reasons for expressing it as five shillings, a) to "sell" it as a substitute for the silver coinage which was in short supply at the time, b) part of a trend for putting denominations on coins, with the florin only four years in the past, and c) maybe the inevitable quality control/wear issues would have resulted in it having a limited legal tender, and call for some disassociation with the other gold coinage, which had unlimited legal tender.


 * "in part"? Looking at the Dyer source, I don't see any other arguments against the quarter sovereign beyond their size and lack of durability, thus requiring greater expense.
 * Deleted.


 * Generally, a bit of a long and unwieldy sentence. I would just split it after "five shillings", and then throw out the "but".
 * Cut.


 * "In 2009, with gold no longer used in circulation," I feel this implies that the impetus for the quarter sovereign was gold coins no longer circulating by the late 2000s, as opposed to increased collector demand for bullion sets. I would clarify this.
 * I cut this and added a sentence about why these coins are being sold to begin with.


 * "The quarter sovereign has the same design as the larger coin, most often..." This one is a bit clunky. The first part of the sentence it implies it has one design, but the latter portion talks about how it is most often a specific design. Rephrasing as "shares the designs" might resolve this.
 * I've done that, but I find it hard to express a) the designs are uniform over the sovereign range at any given time, b) there are one-year designs and c) they always come back to Pistrucci's. Look it over and you may have some suggestion.


 * Victorian pattern coin
 * Aforementioned problem of one of the patterns not being denominated as a quarter sovereign rears its head again here, but that is of course elaborated on above.
 * "...enquired in the Commons of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, James Wilson..." Is there a "Commons of the Financial Secretary", or is he enquiring in the House of Commons *to* the Financial Secretary?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Rest of this section is in decent shape. I would describe the pattern designs at some point, using W. J. Hocking, 1906 as a source.
 * I have that now.


 * 21st century bullion and collector's coin
 * Just describing it as a bullion coin distinguishes it from the Victorian patterns. (And being bullion does not preclude it being a collectors' coin)
 * I've generalized it with "those wishing to hold gold coins"


 * "In the first decade of the 21st century, the Royal Mint had been striking, for sale to collectors and those wishing to hold gold bullion, sovereigns, half sovereigns, double sovereigns, and five-pound pieces." I can tell what the sentence is trying to down, but it's awkwardly phrased. I think it would help to give quite a bit more background context; expand on when gold circulation ended, when Royal Mint bullion mintage began, and what the difference between the sovereign denominations vs other forms of gold bullion (the Britannia I'm assuming most commonly) is for the UK.
 * I've done that.


 * "From 2009 to 2012 the sovereign, in addition to being issued as a proof coin, was sold as a bullion piece, with authorised mintages of between 50,000 and 250,000, though the actual numbers sold are unreported". The sovereign? Or the quarter sovereign? I'm assuming both, since they share designs, but you should clear this up.
 * The quarter sovereign. The actual mintages are not yet published and will possibly be in future editions of the catalogue.


 * "In 2017, a version with the original, 1817 sovereign design was struck. This was for the 200th anniversary of the modern sovereign." Another awkward phrasing. Our readers don't need an additional sentence to figure out this was for the 200th anniversary! I'm sure you can work the adjective 'bicentennial' in so you don't need it. (Also, might be important to mention if this featured the 1817 monarch or the 2017 monarch!)
 * Rephrased.

General Thoughts: Were this a GAN, I'd approve it once the above changes were made. But FAC requires a comprehensive overview of the subject, and I struggle to interpret this as comprehensive coverage of the British bullion denomination. It doesn't clarify the different ways these are sold (in sets versus singles), it doesn't clarify the premiums that set it apart from other quarter ounce gold bullion. It is missing mention of the quarter sovereigns commissioned by the governments of some British subnational entities, most notably those of Gibraltar. The prose struggles with unnecessarily clunking phrasing; I would highly recommend looking over WP:REDEX and WP:POSA, as I have found them both tremendously helpful in improving that aspect of my prose. Oppose at the moment, but keep up the good work of numismatics editing! - Generalissima (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. I'm always delighted to have a review from someone familiar with numismatics. I will work through your points. Regarding the Gibraltar quarter sovereign, this article is only on the British coin. None of the FAs about the sovereign coinage, sovereign (British coin), half sovereign, double sovereign or five pounds (gold coin), is intended to or does mention sovereigns from Gibraltar, Isle of Man, etc any more than the article on two pound coin mentions the Falkland Islands one. The British coin in each case is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which would not foreclose an article on, let us say, quarter sovereign (Gibraltar coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think I've addressed your issues or responded to them (see above). Could you take a second look at the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above ping, I asked Generalissimo to revisit their review on 5 December, with |their edit. Still hope they will.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, my dearest apologies! I had a busy stretch and totally forgot about this. Looking over the changes, I am inclined to change to Support. You fixed up the issues I had; so sorry about not getting back to you prior. Generalissima (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "In 1853, the Royal Mint had produced". Why "had"?
 * Any chance of an explanation of what "bullion pieces" are?
 * "Other reverse designs used included another". I think "included" should be 'include', but don't insist.
 * Hocking (1906): no place of publication?
 * Thank you. I've addressed those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Serial support
Pending... ——Serial 15:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nominal value" - what's nominal; not in article body
 * Clarified as face value.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Slight tension between silver coins being "higher-value" in one sentence but gold "more valuable" in the next?
 * Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "The report that Herschel presented with the pattern coins" - perhaps "Herschel's report on pattern coins", or even just "Herschel's report" since you've just mentioned it.
 * I don't see where I've mentioned the report. He presented the two coins, and we take time out to describe them, and a report saying it would be impractical to make them for commerce.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Why was there a sudden rise in the number of fakes in 1911 or 1922, 60 years later and ten years apart?
 * These are likely fakes to fool collectors, or fantasy pieces, but the source gives no further detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Australia and South Africa" - neither of whom, of course, needed to import their gold, the highest cost to UK minting.
 * Yes, but more importantly, they didn't have the war debts that had to be settled in gold with other nations. So gold could continue to circulate on a limited basis, especially in South Africa.


 * Did they use the 1853 specs in 2008?
 * The amount of gold would have been the same. The diameter seems to have increased. The source for the image of the 1853 pattern coin says 13 mm while that for the 21st century piece says 13.5 mm. The Dyer source says that the 1853 was the same diameter as a Maundy twopence, which my reference books confirm as 13 mm, so I don't think it's an issue of rounding. I could speculate that in 1853 they used the Maundy twopence obverse die because it was available (possibly even left over from the 1848 striking of silver twopences for colonial use) and in 2008 they made it larger to better display the design, but I'd only be speculating.


 * It would be interesting to know how much they sold for since sio far all we know is that they have a nominal value of 25p. And indeed, how much they cost to make? (Some context as to cost, basically.)
 * Added. I don't know how much they cost to make. I don't see where the Royal Mint publishes such figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * FN222: Marsh, pp. 176.
 * Fixed.

Really interesting that one Wehwalt, thanks! Hope this small sliver is useful. ——Serial 15:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I too had a vague look for RM's costings, but also couldn't find anything—perhaps it's a trade secret. Anyway, that satisfies my few concerns (such as they were). I'll be pleased to support this article's promotion.  ——Serial  19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I've taken the liberty of bolding the word support, which I think doesn't show up in the count otherwise. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a trade secret. Or maybe people aren't that interested, like they are, say, for the cost of coining a penny.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It also shows up when it's bolded in a section heading :)  I'd also like to comment on the oppose above. To me, this is misreading the breadth of the article and, concomitantly the expectations to it should be held. If this were an article, say, on gold sovereigns generally, etc., one would expect international (or at least pan-European) coverage. But this is explicitly about the British quarter gold sov. If someone wants to write one about the Gibraltean gold sov, they should saw away. In the meantime, it would be misleading for an article on the British quarter sovereign to discuss other mintings, indeed up to being a breach of WP:FA? #4. If the oppose stands following discussion, then I merely suggest that moving the page to British quarter sovereign (or to play around, Quarter sovereign (British minting) would, propitiously, render the question moot.   ——Serial  21:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've unbolded. I have no objection to a move, Quarter sovereign (British coin) would be consistent with similar articles, I suppose, such as Sovereign (British coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SC
Reading through the above, while the comments by Generalissima are obviously in good faith, I'm not sure I agree with them on the one outstanding point. It's right that this article doesn't try and cover non-British quarter sovereigns, and it would be odd if it did. I see the other point—that of the issuance—is now addressed and included.For my review, just one point to address, in Victorian pattern: That will not affect my support for this excellent piece. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "the demand for gold was so heavy that there was no opportunity to meet the demand for silver": as this could be misconstrued that there was insufficient gold to buy the silver needed, maybe a slight tweak to "no opportunity to produce to produce sufficient silver coinage to meet demand"
 * Thanks, I've rephrased, using slightly different words. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Source and image review
Image licence/rationale seem OK to me. I am not sure that I understand why some images are copyrighted and others aren't, or what the criteria for putting one in the infobox is. Only one has an ALT text.
 * All images except those in the infobox have alt text, and those have a description of the design right underneath. One of the images in the infobox is fair use because since the coin only came in in 2009, all obverses used are not yet Crown Copyright expired. The design shown, first used in 1998 on other coins, will be in the public domain in 2049, and the others used to date will expire not later than 2074. The reverse has been used on British coinage since 1817 and is PD.

Source-wise, spot-checks upon request (when was a coinage FAC last spotchecked?) isn't there a parliamentary journal (Hansard?) that could be used for #3? Ditto for a government press release or whatever in #17. Does Coins of England and the United Kingdom, Decimal Issues  have an author? Is there any discussion anywhere about how these coins and their designs were received or remarked upon? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the Hansard. Royal Mint press releases on their site are only available from 2015. The book you mention does not have an author (other than Spink's). There is commentary on the Saint George and the Dragon design, but it really relates more to its use on the sovereign, so I've included a hatnote referring the reader wanting commentary on that there. Such a hatnote already exists in the half sovereign article. I think that's everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ((u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}, just checking if both of these are now ok, in your opinion? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems OK, although for #17 a replacement source doesn't need to be online. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley
Not sure how I've missed this review till now, and having perused the article carefully I'm afraid I can find nothing to quibble about. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria (and, as Wehwalt's coinage articles do, manages to turn a dry subject into a readable and pleasing article).  Tim riley  talk   14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Next one?
Any objection to my making another nomination at FAC as I await the coin dropping?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure, go ahead although it sounds positively insomnia inducing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)