Talk:Halfpenny (New Zealand coin)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:52, 26 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Descriptive, concise prose. Good work.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead adequately summarizes the article without going into too much detail, the layout is good, no WTW, and the latter two don't apply.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References look good. Not required for GA, but refs 3 and 9 are the same reference, and ref 16 says "Dominion" while ref 17 says "The Dominion". An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand can be wikilinked. Also not required for GA, but recommend adding archive urls for some of the refs that don't have them. Finally, the title of Hargreaves 1972 appears to be From Beads to Banknotes: The Story of Money in New Zealand.
Good catches all around, fixed (presumably a bot will add archive urls). -G

B. 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):
Spot check below.

C. It contains no original research:
Spot check below.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Per Earwig's tool.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Stocker critiques the design of the coin. Are there other sources, perhaps the Numismatic Society, that describe the coin in artistic detail? If there are more critiques, I think a Reception section would be needed for this to cover the main aspects of the coin.

Unlike for the initial 1933 series, I could find no sources on reception for this coin. The 1940 series had a very muted response; newspaper sources are mostly just simple descriptions of the design. - G

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Per COM:CUR New Zealand, images of New Zealand currency may not be uploaded to Commons. Per WP:NFCI, they can be uploaded here under a fair use license, but you should mark them as copyright violations using COM:Cur New Zealand as the rationale for deletion on Commons (or I can do so if you would like).
That copyright applies to the modern New Zealand dollar, but not to the New Zealand pound; I could find no evidence that the NZ government copyrighted its currency at this time. - G

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Can any of the images of the other designs reprinted in Stocker 2011 be included? Are there versions of those images available online via a museum or archive that could potentially be PD in the US/NZ at this point?
The images would be under UK crown copyright, so as they were made prior to 1974 so yes, usable! Good catch. -G
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Spot check of this version:

Can you please email me the relevant pages of Hargreaves 1972 and the Standard Catalog.
- Will do. - G
Ref 1: Please provide specific page numbers that substantiate the sentence and a half before the cite.
- Fixed. - G
Ref 3a: due to government pressure in 1881 – The source says that traders stopped producing tokens because the government "had advised in 1881 that it could supply all coin requirements", not that the government pressured traders to stop.
- Fair, pressured is the wrong word here. Fixed. -G
Ref 6b: Good, but it's odd putting the 1934 letter before the 1933 report in terms of chronology.
- Yeah, good point. - G
Refs 9a & 10: Good.
Ref 11: Good, but I would also quote from the source that the government specified that "the penny and halfpenny designs 'should generally be distinctive of the Dominion or its associations and in keeping with the present series. The following lettering must be included: "New Zealand: One Penny (or half penny) 1940."'"
- Good idea. - G
Ref 14: Good.
Refs 15-16: Good, but Stocker 2011 also states that the committee likely only saw Metcalfe's drawings, not Mitchell's, so that might be worth noting in the article.
Ref 18: 5.67 g in weight – I changed the weight to use the {{convert}} template from grains to grams. The alloy composition also does not match the source, which states: "Copper coin (penny and halfpenny) which was first authorised in 1939 to replace the Imperial bronze coinage hitherto in use, and first issued in 1940, consists of 97 per cent copper, 1⁄2 per cent tin, and 21⁄2 per cent zinc."

Very nice work. I'll be placing this on hold. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@voorts: Just noting on Generalissima's behalf that she is on a self-requested block until the 19th. If you're willing to extend the normal 7-day hold window, she intends to get to this as soon as she's back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Happy to do so. Thank you for letting me know. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and fixed up everything, I think? I'll send you over the requested pages. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not quite so sure about the images of the coins. There's no limitation in the relevant legal provision regarding modern banknotes and coins vs. older banknotes and coins. Apart from that and after you email the pages from the sources I've requested, this should be good to go. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Also, could you please take a look at the point regrading ref 18 above. I see the numbers are still the same in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further spot check based on Hargreaves:

Ref 4a: I think the cite should be to pages 143-144.
Ref 18: good. That also appears to be where the composition found in the previous sentence is from, rather than ref 3. It might be worth noting the discrepancy between the two sources.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Corrected the Ref 18 issue (and did a couple little minor prose changes). Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Looks good. Do you mind if ask Nikkimaria to weigh in on the copyright issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I hope all is well. I was wondering if you could provide a second opinion on whether two of the images in the article, File:1940 New Zealand Half-penny and Commons:File:1940 New Zealand Half-penny, reverse.png can remain on Commons, or whether they should be uploaded here under fair use. Per COM:CUR New Zealand, New Zealand currency cannot be uploaded to commons. @Generalissima's view is that That copyright applies to the modern New Zealand dollar, but not to the New Zealand pound; I could find no evidence that the NZ government copyrighted its currency at this time. My read of the Commons overview and the relevant legal provision is that this is not a copyright issue so much as a law prohibiting reproduction absent Reserve Bank approval, and that that law is not limited to modern NZ currency. Additionally, the Reserve Bank guidelines do not distinguish between contemporary currency and past currency. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons generally considers non-copyright restrictions to not be a valid rationale for deletion there; we only need to worry about the copyright issues. And to determine those, my first question would be this: is it the laws of New Zealand that are applicable, or are these designs old enough to fall under British jurisdiction? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were designed by the UK Royal Mint on behalf of the New Zealand government, which I think still means the Royal Mint has the copyright on it? It was a New Zealander who drew the initial design, but the Royal Mint adapted that design into the coin. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's correct it would likely be PD, but it would depend on the details. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've posed a question regarding the copyright status on Commons, here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: since that board seems to get a comment every few years, we might be waiting a while on this. Since images of these coins have run on the front page without issue and they are explicitly licensed as CC by a museum which does not extend the same licensing to coins definitely still under copyright, isn't it a safe assumption to assume they are okay to use? If the coins were under the Royal Mint's crown copyright, they're public domain like the draft pictures (see licensing on [1] ). If they're under New Zealand copyright, they're public domain, because Leonard Cornwall Mitchell died in 1971, and in NZ artistic works are PD 50 years after the death of the author. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a currency template to each of the images and then I think we're okay to go. I'm persuaded these are PD because Crown Copyright has expired and that the restrictions on use of images of NZ currency are non-copyright restrictions. That said, if we get a contrary answer at Commons, this should be revisited. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, added the template. And yeah, if something comes up we'll have to remove the images from all these NZ coin articles. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'd have to be removed, just moved over to en-wiki with a fair use rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 26 March 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.