Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Postage stamps of Ireland

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

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Postage stamps of Ireland[edit]

Self nomination A well rounded article deserving of WP:FA status as it meets the criteria for an FAC so I look forward to seeing this become the first philatelic FA.

A couple of Philately WikiProject editors have suggested this is the best quality "Postage stamps of ..." articles on Wikipedia and that it is likely of WP:FA quality. One editor said that we should aspire that all "Postage stamps of ..." articles should be of this depth and quality of content. As the primary editor of this article, sure I am biased, but I think objective too; I agree with them, considering it took more than 3 months to write, checking details from all the sources listed. On that point, my only concern is with the bibliographic references that are used as sources for many of the statements made. I wonder if these should not be inline but in doing that I suspect there would be no cleanly laid out books section? By way of background to my contributions you might look at a couple of my other recent major page edits, such as, Postal history and Letter sheet as well as my active work on the Philately Portal. ww2censor 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: My apologies, I'm skimming this and commenting on random bits: Non-free images lack fair use rationale. The lead is insufficient. Why is there a blank section? (Exhibition souvenirs) Years seem to be overlinked (for my taste), yet I see complete dates that aren't linked. The word present links to 2006? Instead of "from 1922 to present", why not "since 1922", which avoids the issue altogether? I'd suggest something similar for the "now"s that link to June (!) 2007. Date ranges need en dashes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). There are too many headings and subheadings for the current text. For example, "Postage dues" has many one-sentence subheadings. Pagrashtak 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: I believe I have addressed all your concerns:
  1. The fair use rational for stamp is that unless there is a specific copyright permission they can only be used in articles about the stamps themselves. So all non-free images now include a statement that fair use is claimed as this an absolutely fair use because they are used in an article about stamps. That issue was talked about before where stamps were used in non-stamp articles but that is not the case here.
  2. The introduction was incorporated into the lead at some stage but I though that was too long in that form. I will take advise on that and be happy to join the lead to the intro if that would be preferred.
  3. Blank section removed - not very important in the overall view.
  4. Reduced year links to a bare minimum. I hope dates are now not "under-linked".
  5. Rephrased the "up to 2006/2007" per suggestion.
  6. Added emdash for the one date range.
  7. Reformatted several subheadings as bold text so they don't appear in the TOC and now the TOC is more compact, especially "Postage dues" ww2censor 21:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "Absolutely correct Fair use in article Postage stamps of Ireland." is not a valid fair use rationale. You have to say why it qualifies for fair use under Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. As for the lead, Wikipedia:Lead section says that the lead should be able to serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. Do you feel this is the case? It's much better without the numerous year links, but full dates should be linked to allow date formatting, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The "since [date]" is better, but I still see the word now being linked to June 2007. This needs to be fixed also. Date ranges take en dashes, not em dashes. I didn't see the one you updated, but I saw a range that needs an en dash that didn't have one. The table of contents is better, but still needs work. You've got 19 primary sections—more than the primary and secondary headings of World War II combined! This is most likely indicative of a need for restructuring. Pagrashtak 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd follow up, You are a hard task master but I appreciate that. Sometimes noticing the small things too is what this is about.
  1. According to fair use of stamps they must be "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" and that is the case for all the images that are actually stamps, not labels. Also I refer to the Irish statutes for Irish Government copyright that states "Government copyright in a work shall expire 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made." So perhaps those images older than 50 years should be made into {{PD-stamp}}. I have also asked another, well experience administrator and philatelic editor to review the images in the article for me, so I will defer on those for the moment and leave you a post when I have revised the licensing, with fire-use rational or an other licence, depending on his suggestions. Do you suggest that I use the {{Non-free media rationale}} template anyway? Image licensing will be acceptable.
  2. Based on your suggestions regarding the TOC I have revised the sections to make more sense and reduce their number, moving around a few sections to make more sense IMHO. There are now only 7 main sections, four with subsections. As part of the TOC revision I have pulled most of the "intro" out into the lead section and feel it stands better than before giving a good overview of the topic. One problem I have is with the image placement in the lead section. Any advise on that?
  3. Dashes - I think I have found them all and edited as suggested.
  4. All full dates have been linked and all solo year dates unlinked.
  5. Found the last linked "now" date problem.
ww2censor 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All image licences have been revised in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and copyright of the images. There should now be no issue with them. ww2censor 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. Although your heading changes simplified the TOC, they still chop up the text and make it hard to read. The text still has dash problems. Pagrashtak 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rd follow up I think I reintroduced several dashes during my inline citation edits and forgot to alter them.
  1. The lead has been expanded.
  2. I think I found all the dashes now and replaced them with ndashes, if not, please tell me exactly where they are because they are hard to spot.
  3. The postage due and the stamp issuing authorities sections have been compressed without removing contents, so I hope you feel they flow better. Several of the subsection could be expended but only with detail that I don't think belongs here. Most of the sections have complete catalogues written about them, but this is not a catalogue, so unless I was to pad the sections I don't think there is much else I can add without seeming to be catalogue like. Each section in necessary and I cannot see a way of combining them without losing the individuality they require. More specific advise would be appreciated on how to achieve the layout you envision if it still lacks the construction you think appropriate.
Thanks for the input. ww2censor 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find some minor copyedits which I fixed myself. The article seems generally to be thorough, comprehensive and well-referenced, with nice graphics, and I will be happy to support the nomination if the following can be addressed:

  • Criterion 2d requires "consistently formatted inline citations" and I'd like to see a few more of these. I understand that for a subject like this there may be a lot of material coming from a handful of books, but I think five inline refs is too few.
  • Done - There are now 30 inline citations, hopefully not too many but I think I have covered all the statements that might be questioned.
  • In the Overprints section it states: "These stamps were issued and in use in Great Britain between 1912 and 1922." I assume this refers to the original GB issues without the overprinting? If so, this should be clarified.
  • Done - copyedited to clarify. The un-overprinted stamps were issued and in use in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1936
  • In the Definitives section it states: "Some series changes are not just design changes but utilise a different watermark..." This is unclear to me; it implies to me that a watermark change alone would not count as a series change, but the article only seems to describe six designs (original, Gerl (should these be 1968-9?), Craig/Wildbur, Heritage/Treasures, Birds, Flowers). Is this because high-values have been counted separately, or should it say something like "Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved complete design changes..."?
  • Done - copyedited to clarify. Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved a complete redesign, or changes necessary due to currency changes; sterling to decimal, and decimal to Euro. (I would love to rephrase with less use of the word "changes". Any ideas?)
  • Later in that section, "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour and many different values were issued until stamps featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland were issued on September 9, 2004." I'm unsure what this means; should it say "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour were issued on September 9, 2004, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland."?
  • Done - copyedited to clarify. Irish birds feature in the 1997 stamps that span the changes of currency used from the Irish pound, through dual currency issues to the introduction of the Euro. These were the first definitives where all values were printed in full colour. On September 9, 2004, a new series was issued, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland.
  • In the "Collecting" section, "more in response to a view of profit rather than the real function of the postal service" (and the section following that: this sounds like a POV (though I suspect it may be a valid one!). Can you provide an inline reference to substantiate this claim, which An Post might want to deny!

I love the picture of the watermark! Walkerma 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - removed possible POV text as I cannot immediately find a source.
Follow up Thanks for the input. I like all of the copyedits that are mainly clarity and grammar related. And I though I could speak decent Hiberno-English! Thanks.
  • One small issue is the addition of a "the" before ESB who I know prefer to NOT use a definite article in front of the name; as in, ESB, not the ESB, but I would let that go from a normal grammar point of view as it might be considered WP:NOR.
  • I will try to address the other issues you mention in the next 24 hours if possible. I was wondering about the number of inline references but was worried about having too many to the same sources. One question in that regard. If I put a book in an inline ref, should it still be listed in the general reference material?
  • Again thanks, I will leave you a message when I have addressed all your mentioned concerns. ww2censor 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't like dozens of cites from the same book, but sometimes it can be useful to have a few, at least. I confess to getting confused myself, the rules have changed so much (and there are different styles too!), but I'd suggest having two sections, as used in a recent FA, Mary of Teck (which you could perhaps emulate). I don't think you need 62 inline, though! The inline cites are mainly needed IMHO for (a) key pieces of information (like the date An Post began) and (b) controversial statements. One good way to look at it is to imagine someone else inserting the fact (and pretend you didn't know the fact) - would it look unsubstantiated, or seem like vandalism? Inline cites can also be helpful for very specific facts such as "There were XXYY Irish stamps released during the 20th century". You can put in different pages from the same book as footnotes; if you want to cite the same pages multiple times, use the ref name system (see Daspletosaurus refs 1, 7, 8). I usually take a look at what the newest FAs look like, see this list, and copy the best of what they do. If you need help with formatting, let me know. Walkerma 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd follow up Again thanks Walkerma for the input. I have annotated the specific issued mentioned individually. I understand you comment about too many citations from the same book and the worst I have is 4 from one book so hope that is not a problem. I looked some of the recent FAs to see the styles used and hopefully I have absorbed enough. I just wish I knew if there was a way of combining references to the same source when different pages are being referred to, not just several references to the exact same citation. Would appreciate your comments on the citations as well as the copyedits. It surprises me that no one else has weighed in on this yet. Is there a way to encourage people to get involved? Cheers & again thanks. ww2censor 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of my concerns have been very carefully addressed in admirable fashion, and I believe the article now meets the criteria. Thanks for taking the time to polish this article. Nice work. Walkerma 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object—It's better. Polish? No, it fails 1a without a doubt. Let's look at the top.
    • "issued by the stamp issuing authority"—oh ... can't we avoid this repetition in the opening sentence? And I didn't want to find another repetition in the very next sentence: "Ireland, Ireland". Then stamps, stamps, stamps, and other reps, including stamps, stamp, stamps again. I'm not saying that words can't be repeated, but it is an unfortunate feature of the text right throught the lead.
    • Pity the opening para is one sentence.
    • "chose to overprint the existing British stamps, with Irish text, to provide"—Does it flow better without the first comma? Remove the comma before "notable".
    • "as well as with the production of eight designed series in the intervening years; nine series in all." These last four words are stuck at the end like a shag on a rock. The choice of a semicolon is questionable (an em dash would be better, but consider recasting?)
    • Remove "many" and "some". When you say "were also produced", in addition to what? (Unclear.)
    • "Styles of watermark"—pipe to the singular.
    • "Irish-issued"—hyphen please, as for "stamp-issuing authorities".

I haven't even finished the lead; there's enough to occupy several good copy-editors for hours throughout the text. These were only examples. Tony 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up It's unfortunate, for me, that you concentrated exclusively on the lead because I just expended the lead a few days ago at the suggestion of User:Pagrashtak who reviewed this WP:FAC first. Anyway, Since your comments, I have copyedited it based on your comments and have done the same for the rest of the article and hope your critical eye will not be displeased.
  • You are correct about the excessive use of the word stamp/s, but what other word is there to use? Unless you are an experienced philatelist you would not know the term adhesive label as an alternative, but I have tried to reduce its use as much as possible. Other words that reappear often are: issue or issued and series, but again I have tried to reduce their use and vary the words and make their use less repetitive.
  • Revised the one sentence first paragraph
  • Recast the "nine series" sentence
  • "Were also produced" has been clarified with additional explanatory text
  • In my copyedit I have attempted to address all your comments about the lead - hopefully the initial bad taste you got has been tempered, if not gone, and you can give the article, with the revised lead, your once over even if you do have some critical yet constructive suggestions at the end.
Thanks for your time ww2censor 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I got interested in this one and spent a bit of time working on the copyediting. I hope it's a lot cleaner now, with some paragraphs a bit clearer. I can't judge the content, so this is perhaps not a very strong support, but I think it's well-structured and appears thorough, and is sufficiently well-cited. I think the prose is professional though not brilliant. Overall a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment to my oppose—I disagree with the previous reviewer: the prose is barely acceptable and not professional. I took a sample from the middle: "Postage stamps: Overprints". I shouldn't be so easily able to find glitches if this is promotable.
    • "... in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until ...." Why do we need the same link twice in same article, let alone the same two lines? Isn't it the United Kingdom of ...?
    • "the final, high value, stamps were issued."—Remove the comma after "value" and hyphen "high value" (see MOS).
    • "In 1922, as an interim measure, before the first specially designed definitives were ready, a series of ..."—Remove the halting, unnecessary comma after "measure".
    • Second para, Feldman states (direct quote)—attribution please.
    • "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." "Several" isn't very encyclopedic. Either name a few as examples, provide the number ("at least three") and/or provide a reference.
    • Third para—"The Provisional Government of Ireland (Irish Rialtas Sealadach na hÉireann) overprints were initially issued on February 17, 1922 with eight low value and three high value stamps being overprinted by Dollard and four stamps overprinted by Thom." Again, hyphens required (and there's another required in the subsequent para—you locate it). Why is "Irish" in italics (twice)? "Being" is ungrammatical and awkward; remove it?

This article should be an FA, but can't be until fresh eyes go through it and fix up the prose. Tony 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Some prose problems.
  • "Registered envelopes have appeared in many different values and sizes." - "different" is redundant, "have appeared in many different values" is ungrammatical
  • "Between 1963 and 2000 a small number of philatelically influenced items are known produced by six different users."
  • "Stamps of the period may have the watermark in any of several different states of inversion" - "in any state of inversion" may be better
  • "1922-23 First Definitive Series" - en dash needed
  • "1 shilling airmail stamp - Vox Hibernia" - en dash needed
  • Judging by a Google search, "un-overprinted" is usually unhyphenated
  • Full dates in the footnotes should be wikilinked. Epbr123 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: Thanks Epbr123 for the comments. I have corrected all the prose problems you mentioned, except for the Vox Hibernia en dash. Nowhere have I seen an en dash used for this. Neither the stamps themselves (look at the image in full size), nor ANY of the Irish stamp catalogues used as sources in the article show an en dash. Also a newsletter (06/2006 issue 13) produced by the current stamp issuing authority, An Post, has two pages given over to the airmail stamps. It does not use an en dash either. You can view the pdf here or link to it from this web page. Hope you agree with that veiwpoint but I would consider changing it if you convince me. If you see any other problems please let me know. Thanks ww2censor 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, either an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash should be used. The same applies to this sentence: "The designs feature the Flight of the Angel Victor - Messenger of St. Patrick - carrying the Voice of the Irish Vox Hibernia" Epbr123 10:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't mean Vox Hibernia should be hyphenated. Epbr123 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your Vox Hibernia en dash comment, but it is done now and I found one other one elsewhere. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Epbr123 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of my (SandyGeorgia) concerns, now all addressed
  • Comment. There's a problem with the TOC and image layout per WP:LEAD. Bolding is used incorrectly in sources (see WP:MOSBOLD), book titles are correctly italicized automatically in cite templates, and no extra formatting is needed. External links might need review and pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Dashes on date ranges are incorrect and some words that should be hyphenated use endashes (mid-1960s should be a hyphen, not an endash; see WP:DASH). If these items are corrected, and prose objections (above) are struck, pls ping me and I'll support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up
  1. I am not sure what your specific concern is about the TOC and image layout. After re-reading the WP:LEAD but cannot see anything that the current setup contravenes. Please explain more fully.
  2. Bold book titles have been revised per WP:MOSBOLD.
  3. The external links could possibly have the catalogue publishers removed but besides those I cannot justify removing any others. Do you agree? (before I actually remove any)
  4. Dashes have been reviewed and edited as appropriate. If I have missed any please let me know.
  5. The prose objections are nearly finished. Just one specific concern needs checking before finishing (hopefully) final edits.
Thanks for the review. ww2censor 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the TOC and the image, WP:LEAD says, "The table of contents... appears between the lead section and the first headline;" WP:MOS#Images says "Start the article with a right-aligned image. " The layout of your lead is non-standard, as you've forced the TOC to the right and the image to the left.
  • I have moved the TOC to the left and image to the right, BUT, I think it looks terrible. The image belongs that bit further down the lead where it was and now there is a huge white space between the TOC and the right margin which really irritates me, but if MOS guidelines require it to be this way, then so be it. I prefer the previous layout !
  • On External links, I do believe you should lower the linkage to stamp catalogues, per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Are any of those sites commercial ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, actually they are commercial sites, but who else makes stamp catalogues except stamp catalogue publishers? However, most are wikilinked in the article itself so that should suffice so they are gone

Another tip: your footnotes are made harder to read than necessary by the repeated information. It's only aesthetics, but they will be more readable (and your article will be more editable) if you change this (sample):

  • ^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 22.
  • ^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 21.

to this, throughout (sample):

  • ^ Feldman (1968), p 22.
  • ^ Feldman (1968), p 21.

This will also shorten the article in edit mode, making it easier to edit, as you can use the cite templates once only (in the Sources); cite templates really chunk up article size. This is not an objection: just a suggestion.

  • Funnily enough I was going to combine these two Feldman ref, as they irritated me too, into one ref because they are sequential pages, but this is one of the few refs that follow one another in the {{reflist}}. I might take on the suggestion and do a reduced ref for those that are listed in the sources.
  • Actually for now, I don't think so. I had a look at reducing the inline refs per your suggestion but as I am using the cite book tags, this requires the title in each tag, it think all the references need to be rewritten completely to achieve that layout, so for now I think I will leave them alone and remember for the future. As you said, it is a suggestion not an objection, so that's it for the moment. Thanks ww2censor 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck everything, a few minor notes left on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that prose objections are all struck; ping me after you've gotten through this, and I'll support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much better written now (particularly the reduction in irritating repetitions), and I won't stand in the way of promotion. But I do find little issues still. Such as ...
    • What is a "semi-state" organisation? I'm suspicious that this is really code for a restructured organisation still under total control of the state. If it's governed by an act of parliament, and is not privately capitalised, it's a state organisation. Can you clarify?
I found a wikilink to clarify this.
    • "The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling." "may have been due to hasty preparation, although this is ?the correct ..." (Please note the changes; in particular, was there one old I spelling, or a number: "a" or "the"?)
Rephrased to clarify
    • "had control of" = "controlled".
Done
    • "nine Irish definitive stamp series"—definitive? Is this a standard philatelic term? Ah, I think it is, so I hope it's glossed on first occurrence ...
This is linked in the 3rd sentence of the lead.
    • There's a lot of "due to". Tony 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I will reduce incidence of "due to" later today.
There is still one issue from your previous comments that I want to address. It is the "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." sentence.
Thanks for taking the time to review. ww2censor 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the instances of "due to". Also rewrote "Several specialised philatelic books" and removed exhibits as I cannot immediately verify exhibits, so could be regarded as POV. ww2censor 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The final section, about stamp collection, is severely undercited, as there are only three citations in 4 (or 5, if you count the single sentence) paragraphs. There are passages about the history of commemorative stamps that, for all I know, are completely made up. Two full paragraphs have no references at all. -- Kicking222 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: Have added some extra inline citations for this section. Hope you approve. Any other issues please post here. Thanks ww2censor 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak support. As mentioned above, the prose is not perfect, but now that my main issue has been mostly resolved (that last paragraph is still uncited, but there's not much that really has to be cited- with that said I would prefer something there), I think the prose is sufficiently decent, in combination with the other aspects of the article, to warrant featured status. -- Kicking222 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Postage_stamps_of_Ireland&oldid=1126595572"