Talk:Penny (British decimal coin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePenny (British decimal coin) has been listed as one of the 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 10, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

New Pence[edit]

British decimal coinage originally had the words "NEW PENCE". The images showing "TWO PENCE" and similar cannot be of original 1971 coins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.89.77 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. The image is of a 2012 coin featuring the latest design of a segment of the royal shield (by Matthew Dent in 2008). As explained in the article, the words "new penny" appeared only from 1971 to 1981. Dbfirs 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

pictures[edit]

You are welcome to use my picture. (It is so tedious to upload a picture that I neary gave up! Fritz@Joern.De – Fritz Jörn (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A british penny of 1996

Changes to inscription.[edit]

The following paragraph was added, then removed as unsourced. It would be easy to check, but can we find a source? Dbfirs 06:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"In 2015, the order of the inscriptions changed. From 1985 to 2014, the "Elizabeth II D.G" was writen to the left side of the coin, by the Queen's head. And with a little space, there was "REG.F.D.2010", to the right hand side of the Queen's portrait. Then in 2015, this order changed again and the whole inscriptions came in a full circle without any space; starting from "Elizabeth II" from the Queen's face in the right side of the coin, followed by "DEI. GRA.REG.FID.DEF.2015". And the mintage year is seen above the crown."
Try [1]. Bazza (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheMagikCow: I will do a review of this. Will get feedback at some point within the next week, maybe even sooner. Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I reviewed each section in turn and have made my comments relating specifically to each section.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg


Lead[edit]

  • "usually simply known as a penny" - this seems like a redundant phrase given the coin is a penny? It's not a nickname or an alternate alias.
  • "equalling one one-hundredth" - why not just "one-hundredth"?
  • Do we need to say the symbol when it is already identified in the opening sentence?
  • Maybe further rephrase the legal tender part on paragraph 2 as it's still has close resemblance to the ref
  • I agree with all of these and have made changes to reflect the feedback. How does the section on legal tender look now? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

History[edit]

  • The first paragraph adds unnecessary bloat as it relates predominantly to the wider coinage debate of the time, not specifically for the coin pertaining to this article. Perhaps condense to a briefer overview.
    • Condensed this. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What differed between the 1969 and 1971 currency acts which impacted on the new penny?
    • They had the same specification - I have changed the wording to "Both mandated the weight...". TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think my point was more around what changed in the '71 act, ideally in relation to the coin? Something must have changed between 69 and 71? The 83 act is noted also, but this at least has some explanation about what this revised. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The '71 Act had exactly the same standard for weight as the '69 act. The changes were about other issues with decimalisation. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't need leading zeros on the numerics (i.e. 3.56400 is 3.564)
    • These zeros show how precise the coins are minted to (eg 3.56400 shows that the coin must be 3.56400g ±0.000005g) TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It's a fair counter-comment, but it would have been beneficial for this to be clear in the prose. My comment is valid when you consider it from the point of view as a standalone number, but in the context as you now describe, it changes the meaning. Therefore, this should be clear that it relates to precision in the way you noted here. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I have edited to make this explicit. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "2000 million decimal 1p and 2p coins were stuck.." - The ref suggests it was 2000 million in total for all decimal coins, which included the half-penny, 5p and 10p too? Ref doesn't note this figure exclusive for 1p and 2p only.
    • I have changed this to the mintage figure for 1971. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "depicts the Queen wears the George IV State Diadem" - typo perhaps, should be "wearing.."?

Manufacture[edit]

Do we need this section? In the same way that an article about a car model doesn't have a generic section about how its made. This section doesn't have anything unique or specific to the penny coin, so why is it there?

Looking back, I agree with this. I have removed the section, and placed where the coin is made in another section. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Status[edit]

Legal tender

  • Maybe as "United Kingdom" is written in full previously, then it should be used instead of the abbreviated form "UK"?
    • Changed.
  • The legal tender section also seems a bit generic and maybe could be condensed. The last line about claims is also probably unnecessary.
    • I think it is now as short as possible, but welcome any suggestions on how to slim it down. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "A shopkeeper, for example, is not under any obligation to accept 1p coins for payment" - at all, or just for payments over 20p? Seems a bit contradictory, as you can't say it's legal up to 20p but that shopkeepers are not under obligation to accept pennies for any amount?
The point here is that legal tender is pretty relevant to everyday life. A shopkeeper does not have to accept 1p coins at all (for any amount). The common misconception is that just because something is legal tender, a shopkeeper has to accept it for payment. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a valid point, but is it also somewhat moot? Shopkeepers can accept or decline any currency or any denomination of currency not just limited to pennies (i.e. the statement used can apply to any coin, denomination or banknote?). I guess it's now short enough (as above) that it doesn't diverge too much so it's not something i'd take any further issue with. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Speculation

  • "subject of media speculation for some time" - "some time" feels more like writer's own opinion/understanding, but this is vague and unhelpful to understand how long it may have been under consideration for.
    • It is one of those things that is hard to put the exact date on when speculation started, so I have removed the phrase. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It has been reported that in 2015" - maybe "It was reported in 2015.."?
  • "This was allegedly vetoed by Prime Minister.." - "allegedly"? The reference and indeed others seem quite clear he definitely did object, rather than it being an allegation.
  • There is inconsistent use of "then", which is currently used before Chancellor (when referring to Osborne) but not in the same way for Hammond or indeed Cameron, who are also former role holders of Chancellor and PM respectively. Need to standardise the prefix.
    • Agreed. I have removed then before Osbourne. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "because of the political risk" - this could be elaborated
    • I think that unpopularity of the move sums it up better. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "A Bank of England report.." - a bit of a stretch saying it's a BoE report? Seems like a blog/informal conclusion by analysts. Can this be checked and clarified if so?
    • It is a blog managed by the Bank of England and written by Bank staff, but not promoting the official view of the BoE. I have changed the wording to reflect this - how does it look? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "estimated that 60% of copper coins are only spent once, before being removed from circulation" - this ref which is used in the article suggests they leave the cash cycle to be saved or "binned", which may be a better explanation then saying "removed from circulation", as coins being stored somewhere long-term are not being "removed" from circulation as such. Also worth noting that 8% are believed to be disposed of.
    • Section rewritten to reflect this.TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "as to mint £500m of copper coins each year" - can we be clear this is both 1p and 2p and not just the "copper coins" that are specifically 1p, which may be an erroneous intepretation?
  • "and that they would be used for 'years to come'" - this makes it seem like Hammond himself made this remark, but it was the official Treasury stance (Hammond was more keen to scrap them). Should this be clearer?
    • I have added and sourced the direct quote from Hammond himself. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Value

  • Can you clarify where on the reference used for the "Value" table regarding previous coin real-terms value this data is taken from?
    • Full information about the calculator data can be found at this link [2] in the 'How we created our calculator' section. Data was ONS for the more recent years and uses academic research for the years further back. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • Oxford ref for pence now points to lexico.com, so update this
  • Hansard ref has erroneous "www" in it, which doesn't direct to the page when included
    • Fixed these, and also fixed the cite news templates that did not have the source name filled in. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mintages[edit]

  • The table seems quite long. Is it worth condensing the visible size by hiding the mintages categorised as per Farthing (British coin) or as a secondary option, increasing the columns as per Ten pence (British coin)?
    • Table is now collapsible. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The edit making the table collapsible was reverted, going against MOS:SCROLL. I will make the columns wider instead. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The circulation figure is 3 and a half years out of date - can we look at a more recent figure (as noted below in "Additional")?
    • Thanks for this source - I have updated the claims. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 2018 mintage says "proof sets" only but then it appears the Royal Mint said none were minted at all? Can we check if this is meant for circulation only or indeed none whatsoever?

Additional[edit]

  • This article from the BBC (among others) suggests a revised estimate of 10.5 billion 1p coins in circulation, as well as none being produced last year (2018) for the first time since 1972. Is it worth exploring both points further, especially the latter on the back of recent calls for withdrawal?
    • Both points now noted. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This ref suggests only 12% of prices are now ending in ".99p" and may relate usefully to the prose about withdrawal and potential impact
  • A poll in 2016 suggested 47% thought the 1p should be scrapped; is this worth noting in the article, particularly withdrawal/future section?
    • Added. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a poll of website users from a site about coin collecting. It was not conducted by a reputable pollster - I don't think the sample is representative of the British population. I'm not sure that it is worth mentioning. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I am sure searching hard enough may uncover other polls from mainstream companies but it's not a deal-breaker by any means. Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This ref notes some examples of businesses/reasons to retain low-value currency - worth exploring that further/expanding upon/including? Whilst the article notes they will be used for "years to come", it would be good to include some reasons why this is and why the decision to scrap wasn't pursued.
  • This article notes some interesting information relating to the withdrawal of the half-penny coin and concerns public had which didn't materialise. May be something useful that relates to the current 1p which finds itself in a similar position?
    • Would suggest that there may be a similar outcome, without that suggestion in the source be against WP:SYNTH? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I see why you think that and I wasn't suggesting adding prose based on personal interpretation or indeed guesswork as to what may or may not materialise; rather, that it can't be assumed or expected that withdrawal would have an impact on pricing, given the country has been in a similar situation before and prices moved in both directions. I found this after the one about the number of products ending in .99p and thought there was a possible correlation between the two. As above though, it's not a deal-breaker and this section was more about seeing if there was other relevant information that could further enhance the detail already being presented. Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing notes[edit]

@TheMagikCow: Interesting read. The coin has been in the media a bit more recently due to the speculation and discussions surrounding its status and potential future removal. I have made a number of observations and suggestions as above. In particular and as I alluded to above, I'd like to see some expansion on the withdrawal/future speculation section, perhaps looking at current usage for the penny and impact if it were withdrawn, as I feel there is some useful information lacking in the article which can easily be found and included. Happy to hold this for a week and see how things are progressing around that time, or even before. Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the detailed review - I am working now to address these points. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@TheMagikCow: Can you advise if you believe you have made your final edit on this ready for another review-check or do you plan on any further additions/changes? Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bungle: Yes, I am happy for another review-check, if that is ok. Many thanks! TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

@TheMagikCow: I made a copyedit just before to make a few changes and pick up a few minor prose issues you overlooked, but nothing major. Happy that my points have been addressed and to promote to GA, well done. Bungle (talkcontribs) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC) @Bungle: Thank you so much for all of your hard work on this review, much appreciated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)