# Talk:Melita issue

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melita issue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Designed by two leading artists — "two leading Maltese artists"?
Done.
Background

An allegorical figure of Malta had first appeared stamps in 1899. — Was an allegorical figure of Malta known earlier, even if not on stamps?
Rewrote the Melita (personification) article for background information + added a sentence at the beginning of the "Background" section as well.
This stamp was reissued on paper — What was the 1899 version issued on?
Both the 1899 and 1919 stamps were issued on paper, but the paper had different watermarks. I removed "on paper" to avoid possible confusion.
although the Governor retained direct responsibility of certain reserved matters — Was the governor a British official? If so, I would clarify that.
Further info added
a competition was announced — Who announced the competition?
Not sure about this. The British Empire Philately source only mentions that there was a competition and the date when it was announced. I was unable to find any additional information about the competition from other sources.
Design

Two designs were chosen from the competition — Any details on the competition? E.g., who were the judges, how many entrants, and so on.
Answered above.
one by Edward Caruana Dingli and one by Gianni Vella. — Is it worth adding anything about them (particularly Vella, since he doesn't yet have an article)?
Article about Vella created.
the pence values ranging from ¼d to 6d ... the shilling values ranging from 1/- to 10/-. — How many different denominations does this add up to for each of Caruana Dingli and Vella?
Added
awkwardly lifting her hand — Why awkwardly?
The Linn's Stamp News source mentions that "Melita is a lissome maiden in a flowing robe, holding an olive branch in her right hand as she leans back, rather awkwardly lifting her left hand up and around the neck of Britannia". However, I removed the word from the article since it's not really necessary when describing the design. I mentioned the "awkward pose" in the "Critical reception" section.

They can therefore be found both postally and fiscally used. — What does it mean to be fiscally used? Anything that can be linked to?
Fiscally used means used as a revenue stamp, ie. to pay a fee or a tax rather than a postal rate (for example used on a receipt, invoice, contract, passport etc). I'm not sure how to explain this in the article. In order to communicate this point easily, I uploaded a photo showing the 1d of 1922 used for postal and fiscal purposes.
Critical reception

This section might be better off below "1926 Postage overprints"
Done
He exhibited an enlarged version of his original design at the Bibliotheca in Valletta to showcase the difference in the designs. — Is a copy of his original design still around?
I can't find any sources which confirm or deny its existence.
Capt. H. W. Jessop — Who is he, and what qualifies him to summarize the stamps' reception?
I'm not sure - he might have been a stamp dealer but I couldn't find any sources for this. I included his criticism in this article since he was quoted by Linn's Stamp News which is a long-running and notable stamp magazine.
In contrast to when it was issued, today Caruana Dingli's design is held in high esteem, and according to MaltaPost "it is widely considered to be one of Malta's most beautiful stamps." — One sentence seems way too short. Anything else about modern commentary? What about commentary between 1922 and now?
I'll try to add some more to this shortly. I was unable to find any sources of commentary made after the 1920s but before the 2010s, but I added some more details regarding contemporary commentary.
This section could also do a better job distinguishing between criticism levied at the two different designs.
It seems to me that the bulk of the criticism was not aimed at the designs themselves but at the printing and particularly the colours chosen. I added a source which has additional information about the 4d value. Most commentary seems to focus solely on the Caruana Dingli design: I can't find any source which applauds or criticizes Vella's design specifically. I mentioned some brief commentary regarding Vella's design as well
Technical details

typography ... recess-printed ... chalk-surfaced paper — What do those terms mean? Anything that can be linked to?
In this context, typography and recess-printing refers to printing methods. I think recess-printing can be linked to Intaglio (printmaking) but I can't find an appropriate article for typography. I'll look for more information about typography and chalk-surfaced paper, and I'll see if I have enough info for separate articles about these or if I can explain the terms in this article.
Anything "panes" can be linked to?

A pane is a subdivision of a sheet. Since there's no article on panes, I added "separated by a gutter" with a link to the latter so that it is easier to understand.
and the £1 was — Should this be "and the £1 value was"?
Done.
Issued stamps

This article should really include a photograph of Vella's design as well, and this would be a decent place to put it (instead of the second rendering of Caruana Dingli's design)
Will do - I think I can add images of the entire set (including the 1926 postage overprints) since these are now in the public domain. Done - I added the image at the beginning of the article.
A requirement for a 2½d value arose in 1925 — Any particular reason why?
A postal rate was reduced. I added this info with a new source.
Notes a, b, d: Why have the notes rather than extra rows with the different colors?
I removed the notes and added extra rows. I also added an extra column for the watermark orientation.
1926 Postage overprints

it is one of Malta's best-known error stamps — Any pictures of it?
I'll add this once I add the other photos. Done.
a report by a committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly in 1930 to investigate the matter was inconclusive. — Why was this such a big deal that it requested a report by a legislative committee?
I'll go through the detailed source about this shortly and I'll see if I can explain it better. Done - added a whole new section entitled "3d with inverted overprint"
Legacy

different signatures — Signatures of who/what?
The signatures are of different Governors of the Central Bank. I added this info with a new source.
remained legal tender until 31 January 2008; they were demonetized ten years later on 31 January 2018. — Was the point of the ten-year period so someone could trade them in at a bank?
Yes. Perhaps it's not necessary to include this detail in this article?
I'm not sure that "Legacy" is the best title for this section, but I'm not sure what a better one would be off the top of my head ("Variations"? "Subsequent history"?).
I agree with you. Perhaps something like "Influence on later designs" or "Influence on later stamps and currency" would make more sense but I'm not sure about them either.
Second read

Who were Carol Saliba and Pio Grech?
I added that they were speculators (the article states that "When Pio Grech was examined he said that on some occasions he speculated in stamps and that he had some postage stamps with inverted overprint in partnership with Inspector (Carol) Saliba")
A small amount of the error stamps were used on mail by philatelists — Why would a philatelist want to do that?
The article mentions the following instances of the stamps used on mail: 4 or 6 stamps "which, apparently, Mr Saliba had used on letters in 1926", a 1929 registered cover sent by Charles Spiteri to an address in the Belgian Congo and returned to Malta after redirection, and 1930 covers sent by Colonel Alexander McKean and Colonel William Gatt addressed to themselves. The article does not state it specifically, but it seems that these philatelists wanted a used copy of the stamp so they sent one to themselves. I added that the stamps used by philatelists included examples "on letters addressed to themselves, posted for the purpose of acquiring the stamp in used condition".
The committee's report was criticized in the press. — Why?
Added clarification that the criticism was due to shortcomings mentioned earlier in the same paragraph.
quite expensive today — $10? $100? $10,000?
I changed this to "stamps with the denominations of 4d, 2/-, 2/6 and 5/- remain scarce today". They have higher catalogue values than other stamps in the set (£10-£55 each for mint stamps, £35-£150 each for used in the 2015 Stanley Gibbons catalogue; the rest of the set catalogues between 70p-£7 each mint, and 15p-£22 each used). I would like to refrain from quoting catalogue values in the article since catalogue values are quite inflated and real market prices are actually much lower, but it's true that those particular four denominations are the scarcest ones of the set.
MaltaPost issued a ... a €4.16 stamp to commemorate the 90th anniversary — Is there any significance to the oddly specific number 4.16?
I think that this represented a specific postal rate, but I don't know which one. MaltaPost has many odd postal rates (especially since the changeover from lira to euro in 2008, where old postal rates were converted to the new currency resulting in odd values). Rates have increased several times since 2011, and I cannot find what that particular rate represented on the MaltaPost website.
How much do examples of the 3d with inverted overprint sell for?
I added 2015 catalogue values of £170/£500 for mint/used. In reality it sells for less than that (for example, a mint single sold for £60 and a used pair for £450 in 2010 and a mint one sold for £56 in 2017). Although I would have preferred to not quote any catalogue values, I guess it makes sense in this case since this is a notable error in itself and I think it's preferable to quote those than the auction realisations since the latter might be WP:Original research.
Overall

Very nice article, Xwejnusgozo. The "Critical reception" section could use some work, but otherwise the comments above are pretty minor. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Thanks for the review! I will try to address the issues you identified as best I can in the next couple of days. For now I made a minor edit to the lead, added some more background information regarding the 1921 self-government, changed the position of the "Critical reception" section and created an article about Gianni Vella. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I also rewrote the Melita (personification) article so as to have more background information on the depiction of Melita (this article was previously mainly dedicated to the depiction on the stamps). Is this sufficient or should I add a couple of sentences summarising the origins of the Melita personification to the "Background" section of the Melita issue article as well? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The Melita and Vella articles look great, Xwejnusgozo; it's always nice when a quality article links out to other quality articles. I might just add that depictions of Melita trace back to 1481, so that it is clear that the stamps were invoking an already well-known image. But I don't think you need to go much beyond that. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I made a number of changes to the article, trying to rectify as many of the issues as possible. I added bullet points describing my changes under each of your comments so that it's easier to keep track of the improvements. I also added a paragraph about proofs and specimens at the end of the "Technical details" section. All the best! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I have another question: in the lead I mentioned the "Maltese lira banknotes of 1989–2008". Should I change this to "1989–2007" or should I leave it as it is? The lira was the currency of Malta until the end of 2007, but the notes (and lira coins) remained valid alongside the euro until the end of January 2008 (and were demonetized in 2018). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, Xwejnusgozo. I think all that remains is to add the extra photos if possible; to look at the source regarding the Legislative Assembly investigation; and to expand the legacy section to the extent possible. One other thing that strikes me now is that the article could probably do with commentary on the collectability of the stamps (if they are indeed collected); this is in a number of articles about coins (e.g., Albany Charter half dollar and Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar), and could be a good idea here, especially if you intend on taking this to FAC afterwards. But I don't think that's strictly necessary for purposes of this nomination. As to your question, I think it probably makes sense to leave it as "1989–2008". That's enough for the lead, and the nuance is explained in the body of the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I think I've made all the changes I'm able to do and addressed as many of the issues as possible. I added images of all the stamps on Wikimedia Commons (and added a link to the newly-created Commons category at the end of the article), including a mint copy of the 1899 stamp (instead of pic with the revenue overprint) as well as the 3d invert error. I rewrote the "1926 Postage overprints" section almost completely, including a new subsection about the invert error. The article about the error was interesting since it also included various details about the overprinting at the Government Printing Office, some of which I added to this section. I also wrote a new section entitled "Sale and collecting", which includes details about the sale of the stamps upon their issue (including increases in Post Office revenue which were attributed to the sale of the stamps), as well as some brief information about present market values to collectors, philatelic literature about the issue and a brief note regarding forged overprints. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Xwejnusgozo, this looks great. Minor points above under "Second read". —Usernameunique (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Thank you for your second read of the article. I made a few minor changes and replied in more detail under each point. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Xwejnusgozo, passing now. It would be great to see this at FAC; feel free to drop me a line if you nominate it. To respond to one point above, I think using auction prices is fine, and have seen it done frequently in other articles (including a number of featured articles about commemorative coins). So long as it is phrased along the lines of "a mint example sold for [amount] in [year]," rather than "as evidenced by auction sales, these stamps are worth [amount]," it shouldn't constitute original research. —Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Thank you for passing the article! I might nominate it for FA status in the future, especially if I'll be able to acquire (or have access to) the Malta Study Circle publications on the issue so that I can add some more details. I'm thinking of expanding various Malta philatelic articles so as to hopefully achieve Featured topic status, but there's a long way to go (Only Revenue stamps of Malta and now Melita issue are GA's, and most of the other articles such as Postage stamps and postal history of Malta, Halfpenny Yellow and Malta Saint Paul 10s black need a rewrite). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)