Talk:1949 New Zealand crown

1949 New Zealand crown 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: January 28, 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 1949 New Zealand crown appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a commemorative coin was made for a nonexistent royal visit to New Zealand?

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/1949 New Zealand crown.

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 Lightburst talk 00:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a commemorative coin was made for a nonexistent royal visit to New Zealand? Source: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19491112.2.19
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Baghdad (1258)

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 23:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1949 New Zealand crown; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1949 New Zealand crown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 11:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Going to review another one of your articles, comments to follow shortly :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 11:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Great article, well done! Just a few questions from me on the sources. Otherwise, almost ready for GA. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 12:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Lead Y Background Y Production Y Release Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections Y Layout Y Words to watch None identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
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.	Sources are cited appropriately and in the correct layout.
	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).	Source check Below is a review of a selection of sources. Stocker, Mark (2010) Y Stocker, Mark (2011) the 1940 Centennial half-crown was produced in far larger quantities and entered circulation at face value. Due to considerable demand from collectors, the coin quickly fell out of circulation. Apologies if I'm missing something in the source - I can't find info on p.221 which references the half-crown being produced in larger quantities, entering at face-value, or that the reason for its decline was due to collectors. Cook, Megan ~~Where in the source does it confirm that this was the fifth visit by a British prince?~~ "Royal Tours Abroad". New Zealand Herald. Y Royal visit badge". Museum of New Zealand. Y Royal Visit to N.Z. in 1949 Announced". The Press. Y "Royal Visit To N.Z. Before Australia". Northern Advocate. Y Proposed Commemorative Crown Piece Y Notes of Meetings Y "Special Crown Piece May Be Struck By N.Z. To Mark Royal Visit". Wanganui Chronicle. Whilst the publication date of the source is 1 June, the report was from 31 May. Should the article therefore say "Following Australian consideration of a commemorative coin in a four-shilling denomination, Minister of Finance Walter Nash moved in ~~June~~ May to support the Royal Numismatic Society's proposal of a circulating commemorative coin." Minting of Crowns". Wanganui Chronicle. Y New Zealand Crown Piece Y Royal Mint Annual Report 1948 Y The King's Health". The Press Y NEW ZEALAND. Crown, 1949. PCGS PROOF-66 Gold Shield". Stacks Bowers. Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Through conducting source spot-checks, content there has been no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Source spot-checks brought up nothing of concern. Copyvio detector also brings up nothing of concern.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses all main aspects of the topic - background, production, and its release.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Where background is mentioned, it is relevant to the article topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Content is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable, majority of edits are by the nominator. No evidence of edit wars.
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.	Images are tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y
	7. Overall assessment.

Ope, I meant to also cite the Waitangi crown article on the Stocker (2011) sentence. Fixed that. - G
For the Cook source; it doesn't explicitly say that it was the fifth visit, but it counts four prior visits; three by Alfred, one by Edward, Prince of Wales. Since royal visits were so rare during this period, I feel it's reasonable to assume they weren't missing any. - G
Oh, good catch! Fixed. - G

@Unexpectedlydian: Thank you so much for your feedback! Made edits as requested. Generalissima (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Brilliant, thank you for addressing those. Happy to promote to GA now, well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 11:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]