Talk:Sixpence (New Zealand coin)

Sixpence (New Zealand coin) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 1, 2024. (Reviewed version).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Sixpence (New Zealand coin) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a hammer and sickle motif was proposed for the New Zealand sixpence?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sixpence (New Zealand coin).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by DirtyHarry991 talk 00:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a hammer and sickle motif was proposed for the New Zealand sixpence? Source: https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/2005_BNJ_75_9_nz.pdf, p. 148.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Akazehe

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sixpence (New Zealand coin); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

New enough (going by Dec.29 move from draftspace), long enough, and adequately sourced. QPQ done. Interesting hook; source verified. Earwig found no problematic copying. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word[edit]

In the third paragraph of the "Design" section, in the sentence: "This design was rejected by the Advisory Committee due to the impossibility the majority of the spears' hafts." Isn't there something missing? "of showing the majority" maybe? BloubDeFontenilles (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good catch! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Frostly (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sixpence (New Zealand coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Frostly (talk · contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I'll be reviewing this article! Best, Frostly (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Howdy, any update on the review? Generalissima (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, my sincere apologies, this flew off my radar. Will get this done by tomorrow. — Frostly (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Not to badger, but checking in again! Generalissima (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, sorry for the late reply! I had initially drafted this review twice, but my computer crashed and it was unsaved both times :(

Great work on the article! I find it very interesting to learn about coins pre-decimalisation :D

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good refs!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	High-quality sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information is sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good scope for the article!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nice balance of useful information regarding the coinage.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good coverage of different perspectives between the artists and committee.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit-warring or major changes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See comments below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-written alt text!
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead[edit]

coinage is used a lot throughout the article; if there’s any synonyms, it’d be nice to replace some of the usage to avoid repetition. (eg silver coinage introduced in the initial issue of New Zealand coinage)
were rejected by committee — clarify what committee it was
- Fixed both of these. - G

Background[edit]

and other British silver denominations — maybe remove? The article already mentions British silver coinage at the start of the sentence.
Consider linking to the subsection “Forgery of money or government bonds” for Counterfeit
The Coinage Act of 1933, consider removing unneeded comma
Perhaps clarify that the Royal Mint is the UK’s mint? I’m not sure about whether the name itself is enough for context (it might be).
- Fixed everything here. - G

Design[edit]

George Kruger Gray is introduced somewhat confusingly, in parallel with Metcalfe, who was already mentioned at the start of the paragraph. Consider rewording.
Metcalfe submitted a design for the sixpence featured two hammers — looks like a small grammar issue here
the Advisory Committee — the Advisory Committee is mentioned in the second paragraph without any background; it’d be great to have some more context.
Link George Forbes (New Zealand politician) and Gordon Coates
appointed a Coinage Design Committee — maybe clarify that this was a new committee established, separate from the Advisory Committee?
- Fixed everything here. - G

Mintage[edit]

Besides the proof sets — consider using “other than” here, since “besides” is already used in the previous paragraph. Not a big issue though, either could work.
'prooflike' should probably be changed to use double quotes (“) per MOS). (Single quotes are used inside quotations, to roughly translate phrases, or in plant cultivars).
collectors set — should this be collectors’ set (with the apostrophe)?
Table headings (eg George V Sixpence Mintage) — consider making it sentence case, like “George V sixpence mintage” (per WP:HEADERS).
- Fixed everything here. - G

Files[edit]

File:Coin-6-pence-new-zealand-1965-537613-large.jpg and File:1965 New Zealand Sixpence Reverse.jpg are tagged with CC licenses, but I’m pretty sure that they’re PD.
- The coins are PD, but the photographs of the coins are CC, which is slightly irritating to finagle. - G

Other[edit]

Right now the short description repeats information in the title, which is usually unnecessary; I’d recommend making it include the dates that the coin was minted, maybe.
- Used the short desc. from the Half-crown. - G
The New Zealand sixpence redirect is great; I’ve added an rcat.

That’s all from me for now! Frostly (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: Thank you very much for your review! I think I fixed all the issues. Generalissima (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.