Template:Did you know nominations/Twopence (British pre-decimal coin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Twopence (British pre-decimal coin)[edit]

Obverse of the 1797 British twopence

  • ... that British twopence coins (pictured) minted in 1797 were known as "cartwheels" due to their unusually large size and thick rim?

Created by Retroplum (talk). Self nominated at 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough, new enough, is well referenced and free from any significant close paraphrasing. Image is free and QPQ is not required. One referencing issue - the source for the hook fact says they were "known as ‘cartwheels’ because of their huge size", and although it mentions the thick rims it does not say these contributed to the nickname (however likely it is). @Retroplum: are you able to find a source that supports the hook fact more clearly? Thanks. 97198 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I'm not sure whether the image is free - Template:Non-free currency-UK and others seem to suggest that pictures of UK currency are copyrighted. Could you confirm? 97198 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added an online reference that mentions the rim as reason for the nickname. I'll try to find a written source too. As for the image, Template:Non-free currency-UK only applies to currently circulating coinage. Retroplum (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay I've added a much better published reference which mentions both the large size and thick rim as reasons for the nickname. Retroplum (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks - the new reference looks good, and image issue is sorted out. Good to go. 97198 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)