Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:42, 7 July 2008.

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)

 * Nominator(s): Miguel.mateo (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it passes all of the FA criteria and the information it provides is not easy to find on catalogs or in the internet (it is staggered in several sites, incomplete and in different languages). I believe it is well written, well-sourced, properly formatted and the information it contains is complete (all Belgian Euro commemorative coins from 2002 until today).

As a background, the Euro is currently being used in 15 countries of the European Union. Each country can mint circulating coins and 2 Euro commemorative coins that are legal tender in the entire Euro zone. But as a legacy of the practice of minting silver and gold coins, very high value in precious metals like silver, gold, titanium, niobium, etc are still minted. These coins only have a legal tender in the issuing country. Collecting these coins and seeing how difficult is to find information about them was the main reason why a set of Wikipedians decided to start a Euro gold and silver commemorative coins set of articles, one for each of the countries. Belgium is the first one of these articles being completely finished, extensively sourced and extensively wiki-linked. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems more (to me) like a list, which goes to Featured lists. A quick note - references need formatting... all internet sources need publishers and accessdates (see WP:FN). cite web is optional but useful. giggy (O) 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, all references are live so I hope it is OK to put access date as today (based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong?). About the list, I myself have a debate and I am looking for some quidance, I proposed FA because €2 commemorative coins (a very similar article) is an FA. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * According to Featured list candidates/€2 commemorative coins, consensus was reached less than a year ago that these types of articles are indeed more appropriate for FAC than FLC. I would personally disagree, but the discussion has already been made fairly recently.
 * I do not mind to put it as an FLC, so shall I drop this conversation here and create it there? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing publishers for most of the references; please add them.
 * Will do later today, I have mentioned them in the name so the information is there. But again, based on WP:FN publisher is not mandatory, am I wrong or publisher should be in all references of a FA or FL? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:CITE/ES. Gary  K ing ( talk ) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, all internet references have a publisher now, I was putting it in the title instead, thanks for the lesson ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.muntslag.nunaar.be/index.htm reliable, especially when it is used about 25 times in the article?
 * This source is the web site of a Belgian euro collector and seller. He also happens to contribute very active in euro related forums which I can not source due to Wikipedia standards.  All the information has been confirmed with catalogs which I have not referenced because they are in other languages. Also this particular site is one of the best indicators of market price for the coins, since they sell (whatever they have in stock). Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary  K ing ( talk ) 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment – The list looks great, from a quick look at it, but Devil's in the details, as they say (the Purple Oyster of Doom, in my case). I have located this sentence in the last section: "The unusual aspect of this coin being that the bird itself is actually colored blue!" Exclamation marks are to be used nowhere but in quotations; please ensure that this is rectified (you might wish to rephrase if you consider the sentence less satisfying without the exclamation) and that there are no other breaches of encyclopaedic tone. Waltham, The Duke of 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for the review. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't thank me just yet. :-) Do you agree that the dates should be in the day month year format instead of the month day, year one mainly used in the United States? Waltham, The Duke of 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your compliment and because you did take the time to read it, at the point you found the only exclamation in the whole article! :) About the dates, I read in MOS:NUM that as long as it is coherent in the whole article, there is no need to change it. I have using month day, year all of my life. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it also says right afterwards that an article with a strong national tie to a country should use the format commonly used by that country. Anyway, I've left the date in the intro intact for the moment. I hope I have not been too drastic with the rest of it; I really thought the language was in great need of a good copy-edit. More improvements could be made, of course, by someone with a better command of the language than myself. Waltham, The Duke of 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed, I am sure that Matthewedwards will like it more the way it is now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was addressing all the points you mentioned in the leading section, after I added all the info Waltham did a great copy-edit, that is what I refer too. I am sure you would not like what the leading section was before his changes :) Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I haven't checked the diffs to be honest. I agree with his date formatting concern though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, all dates have been changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Improved greatly since the FLC began. Could also make for an interesting WP:FT in the future. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Matthew, bringing all the articles to FL standard is our current goal, definitely the Behag goal is to reach FT. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * There seem to be a few small inconsistencys, the coin with topic "Justus Lipsius" the gold and silver coins have one description, this don't seem to have been done for topic "Maurice Maeterlinck" instead it has 2 descriptions with the second stating "This coin design is similar to the 10 euro Maurice Maeterlinck coin" I don't see why there is a need for 2 descriptions and then not give 2 descriptions, this is repeated for the topic "Olympic Games 2008" this time the gold coin has a bit more info (although not really a description), Finally the topic "Olympic Games 2008" & "2008 Olympic Games" should they not both be either or.Kevin hipwell (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Kevin, good catch! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, it's pretty good, but was overlinked. Still is. Autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged, and here, the high-value links need to breathe. Please see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT on this issue, plus the trivial linking of the names of well-known countries and cities. Why is "proof linked 100,000 times? Just once'' is enough. TONY   (talk)  08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that overlinking is the case for this article, was gonna mention that yesterday because of the "euro coins minted" double link on the first sentence, also why is Alloy linked more than once?. TONY I don't see in the WP:MOSLINK or WP:CONTEXT that "autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged" can you please point out to me where this is stated.Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the so many contributions: so many edits in such a small time frame for me to digest! As I explained before, there are wikilinks in several other articles pointing to sections in the article (links to "...#2006 coinage" for example), this is the main reason why on purpose I over wikilinked the same terms.  As of now, a reader that wants to read about the coin by following the previous sample link for a coin of 2006 will not see the links to "proof" for example.  This was my only concern, but if people fill different is OK with me.
 * Satisfied now! TONY   (talk)  09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The article has met all criteria. -Kevin hipwell (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.