# Talk:Epaulettes (stamp)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Epaulettes (stamp)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 02:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on!—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:

"The successful design was just one of a variety of options produced by Jacob Wiener" Any more info on that? Noting other ideas for the stamps that fell through could be helpful in the article.
Sorry, I've not been able to find anything else on these. I'm not sure the others even survived! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"The success of the two initial stamps led to the introduction of three new varieties with different designs and denominations, in October 1849." This seems a bit odd. Aside from that last comma being unneeded, did they notice it was a success that quickly, deciding to make more varieties in just a couple months?
Y - rephrased. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Epaulettes featured as part of the design of stamps issued by Belgium in 1925 and 1972. For their 100th and 150th anniversary, in 1949 and 1999, the Belgian postal service published commemorative series." A cite for these would be nice.
Y - well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No major problems to note. I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when fixed. Wizardman 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman, will get to it asap. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I considered trying this GA but have no experience with them and even though Brigade Piron asked me to consider it, I mentioned that fact as well as having some reservations about the article, especially its completeness. In that vein, let me give you some things to consider though I am sure you will give it a fair hearing.

In December 2011 (59 epaulette lots), April 2012 (54 lots), December 2012 (55 lots) and September 2013 (97 lots though some belonged to Moche Burshtein) one of the most well known collectors of Belgian philately, Anatoly Karpov, whose collection included numerious exceptional Epaulette items were auctioned for big money by David Feldman. The catalogues, which I think are still online, have some good illustrations. For instance, a combination cover of 20c and 10c Medallion issue sold for €130,000 and individual lots sold for substantial amounts, several rarities are mentions as are sheets of proofs and other items not mention to exist in the article. If you can't find these catalogues, I have them and can let you have them or link them in Dropbox or elsewhere you like.
No mention is made that FDCs are known, or of Willy Balasse, a dealer who published a catalogue on Belgian stamps in 1942 amongst other works specifically on the Epaulettes; the APRL throws up these results and this some of which may be useful sources. Perhaps the article relies too heavily on the 19th century work by Moens.
Moshe Burshtein and Jan Huys are two philateic exhibitors who have excelled with their Epaulette or Epaulett-centric exhibits.
For completeness and GA I feel such information should be included as necessary details in order not to fail WP:GACR #3. ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ww2censor. With all respect though, I can't help feeling that this becomes a bit too much like minutiae. Don't forget what Wikipedia is not. As I understand it from your points (i) you believe more should be made of notable collections of Epaulettes and (ii) their variations; (iii) include mention of the FDC and (iv) use other, more recent sources and (v) talk about recent sales? (ii) is already done (since our last exchange) & I'd be delighted to do (iii) if you can provide a reference for your assertion. (iv) however might be advisable for FA status, but is not compulsory and frankly I have 0% chance of ever being able to access it anyway. I don't feel that over-reliance on Moens (as a very WP:RS in his own right) is too much of a problem. As for (v), I disagree categorically. I believe that beyond putting a basic catalogue value, anything else is too rarified. Perhaps the combined cover would be worth including though, if you can provide the reference? I hope this sounds reasonable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd also add that, according to OCLC, the 1942 book you cite (which also covers virtually the whole of Belgian philately until 1866) is just 8 pages long! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the subejct matter, I don't see its current length as being an issue, and it does look like any further additions would begetting into really minute detail just for the purposes of padding. Since everything else has been fixed I'll pass the article. Wizardman 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)