... separate revenue stamps… - the link doesn’t lead where you would expect it to. Consider amending to something like ‘separate Maltese revenue stamps’ and link Maltese revenue stamps (Revenue stamps of Malta).
I kept the text as it was but I changed the link to revenue stamp (there are links to the Revenue stamps of Malta within the text and in the "See also" section).
The Barriera in question has nothing to do with the redoubt, but it is a building at Valletta's foreshore at the Grand Harbour (it is mentioned in this news report). At the moment there is no Wikipedia article for this building.
...mail began to be disinfected… - the link doesn’t go where you would expect it to. I would rearrange the text so that the link works, e.g. by linking ‘...mail was disinfected…’.
Done
... in the capital Valletta. - Valletta has already been mentioned in the section, but not introduced as the capital.
Done
...between 1755 and 1791. - any reason provided by the experts for why the gap is so big?
I'm not sure about this. The source which I used only states the following: "Circa 1755-1791: First postal marking hand stamps recorded on Maltese mail; the MARS mark thought to be an abbreviation for Marseilles." This is also confirmed by the Malta Postal Museum. Unfortunately I don't have access to any additional sources relating to this period so at the moment I cannot elaborate more on this. Proud is an excellent source on Malta's postal history but it only covers the period of British rule, ie. 1800–1964.
Understood, but as it's an unusually large range, consider adding 'According to an article about the postal history of Malta in the Times of Malta, the first postal markings etc etc...'...' or something similar. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the text to "The first postal markings on Maltese mail appeared sometime in the second half of the 18th century." with an endnote reading "According to a 2008 article about the postal history of Malta in the Times of Malta, the first postal markings appeared sometime between 1755 and 1791. This is also confirmed by the Malta Postal Museum." plus references to both the 2008 Times article and the postal museum website. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During the centuries of Hospitaller rule… - sounds too vague.
I changed this to just "During Hospitaller rule".
...was relatively common… - in comparison with what?
This means that most of the mail sent to/from Malta was from/to the Italian states and France. There was also mail sent to/from Greece and Spain, but this was not that frequent.
Now understood—I would replace the sentence, e.g. by saying 'During Hospitaller rule, most of the mail between Malta and the Italian states and France. There was also mail sent to and from Greece and Spain, but this was not as frequent.', or something similar. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
French occupation (1798–1800) – I would combine this subsection with the following one, to avoid having a one-paragraph subsection, and retitle, e.g. to ‘French and Early British rule (1798–1884)’.
I think it's better to combine it with the previous section, since British rule marked a new chapter in Malta's postal history. I combined the Hospitaller and French sections under the title "Hospitaller rule and French occupation (1530–1800)".
... the British Civil Commissioner of Malta Sir Alexander Ball … - amend to ‘ Alexander Ball, the British Civil Commissioner of Malta’ removing ‘Sir’ and the 'sky of blue'
MOS:SOB
effect.
Done
After Malta had become a British protectorate… - I would include the year here.
Done (added 1800)
...in order to create a mail link… - not exactly sure what is meant here.
This refers to the establishment of a regular mail service between Malta and the UK - something which did not exist prior to 1806.
Thanks, that's clear now, I would clarify the phrase in the article (e.g. '...the Packet Office was established in order to create a regular mail service between Britain and Malta.' or something similar. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...slitting letters open and soaking them in vinegar… - I would amend to ‘...slitting envelopes open and soaking the letters in vinegar…’, or is this amendment inaccurate?
Envelopes were not common in the early 19th century: people would write letters on sheets of paper which would be folded such that a blank part of the paper would be on the outside, and this would then be used to write the address (there's an article which explains this better: Letter sheet). The point is that the letter and 'envelope' are one and the same thing in this case - it's somewhat similar to the later concepts of lettercards and aerogrammes.
I guessed as much, just checking. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malta claims to have been the first British colony to join the UPU,… - are three citations needed for this fact?
You're right, they are not necessary, so I removed two of the citations.
... a proposal was made … - by who?
Done: added detail that the proposal was made by the Governor + a citation for it.
Some of the larger post offices… - 4 citations needed?
This is because each citation related to a particular post office. I changed the position of each citation directly after the location of each PO.
I wrote just "EU" here because I mentioned and linked the European Union at the beginning of the paragraph. For clarity's sake, I added the abbreviation EU in brackets after this mention.
Much of the first part of this subsection (Use of British stamps in Malta (1857–1884)) has already appeared in the text. The second half appears to be a list of British stamps available during this period. Is this subsection needed?
You are right, however I think it's important to have a section on British stamps used in Malta under the "Postage stamps" section, since they were actually the first stamps ever used in the islands. Stamp catalogues such as Stanley Gibbons begin their "Malta" sections with a "GB used in Malta" subsection.
Agreed, but the issue of duplicated information needs to be addressed. Perhaps ‘In 1855, a wavy lines grid postmark was sent to Malta to cancel British stamps on mail sent by British military personnel during the Crimean War. British stamps became available to the general public in Malta in August 1857…‘ can be removed from the large Early British rule (1799–1884) subsection. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Thanks for the review! Regarding the potential copyright violation from this blog, I can confirm that I did not copy anything when I wrote the lead of this article (actually in September 2017 rather than May 2020). It seems clear that the writer of the blog copies chunks of Wikipedia articles: the first part of the blog copies parts of the Malta article, while the rest is from this one. The blog even contains Wikilinks, and this seems to be the case with all of their other blog posts. Such copying from Wikipedia compromises many Wikipedia "Postage stamps and postal history of XXX" articles when it comes to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. For example, Postage stamps and postal history of Angola appears as a copyvio with 79.6% confidence because of the same blog, and Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain appears as a copyvio with 96.7% confidence because of a different blog but for the same reasons. Although the dates still do not add up, it is possible to edit a blog post so it seems that the writer of the blog edited their 2015 post sometime after my 2017 editing of this article.
Regarding the other comments, I will reply after each point made in the "Assessment" section so it's easier keep track of all the changes. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, glad the issue is sorted out satisfactorily. I'll cross out comments that are sorted, to help see how things are going. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malta stamps under British rule
A couple of layout issues:
The text is hard to read because of the scattered images. See
for how I would set some of them out. What do you think?
Without the multiple subsection titles the images look much better, and I think don't now need to be rearranged. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general, there are too many subsection titles in this section—two are followed by single paragraphs, and three others have more paragraphs but the last paragraph in each is very short. The layout could be greatly improved by removing some of these subtitles and combining some of the paragraphs.
I divided this section into four subsections: "Queen Victoria, King Edward VII and pictorial definitives (1860–1911)", "King George V definitives (1914–1930)", "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II definitives (1938–1964)" and "Omnibus and commemorative issues (1935–1964)". --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... the new monarch… - this doesn't seem to work in a sentence that includes the date 1860.
I removed "of 1860" since it's not really necessary here. I think it's OK to leave the text "the new monarch" in this case, but if you disagree please let me know. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... definitives were with this new watermark. - appears to me to need some copy editing.
Done - text replaced by "A new watermark was introduced in October 1904 and it was used on subsequent reprints of the 1899–1901 pictorials and 1903–1904 definitives." --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After George V became king in 1910, new definitives were issued depicting his portrait between 1914 and 1920. - sounds impossible to me....
I replaced this text with "After George V became king in 1910, new definitives which depicted his portrait were issued between 1914 and 1920." --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"POSTAGE REVENUE" – I think examples of quoted text such as this should be written in the title case. (
MOS:ALLCAPS
)
Done (changed to Postage Revenue ) --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the need for ‘Further information: Halfpenny Yellow’ when the article is linked in the paragraph below.
If JPKos does not reply I think we can add "Scan of original" as the source. In the "Author" section there is "scanned November 2009 by User:JPKos". --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this either. I'll try to check soon but if there's some uncertainty I think it would be best to remove the image from the article, although I don't think it should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons unless the situation is clarified. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done—it can always be taken out at a later date. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postal stationary
The subtitles (with the exception perhaps of Pre-stamped envelopes) are not needed, and any instances of small (e.g. single sentence) paragraphs need to be addressed.
Check through for duplicated links, e.g. Queen Victoria.
In this section I created multiple subsections since I wanted to have a dedicated section for each type of stationery. You are right that it doesn't look well that the "Newspaper wrappers" and "Aerogrammes" sections have one or two lines while the others have a couple of short paragraphs. The problem is that very few examples of certain types of stationery were issued when compared to others, such that in some cases there isn't a lot to write about. I'll try to edit this section soon and possibly rewrite some parts or add some more information but I'm still not sure on how to go about it at the moment.
Regarding duplicate links, I linked each monarch, printer etc the first time each was mentioned in this section, even though they were mentioned earlier in the article in the "Postal history" or "Postage stamps" sections. I did this because the article is rather long, and the entire "Postal stationery" section would have very few wikilinks without repeating a few which had been mentioned earlier (apart from the first paragraph which has links for postal stationery and each type of stationery, this whole section would only have 3 links: imprinted stamp, McCorquodale & Co Ltd and luzzu). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate links issue needs to be sorted in some way, according to
MOS:DUPLINK , but there are "ways and means" of complying with the MOS, without losing the links you think are needed: I'll start by moving as many links as possible to the captions of neighbouring images, and then look again at the remaining duplicates. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Xwejnusgozo: The duplicate link are now gone, either because they have been moved to nearby captions, or removed (being common terms like Elizabeth II), replaced by other links, or just taken out. A couple of new images have been added as part of the process. Please feel free to revert as necessary. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your'e happy to retain the titles, so am I. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are currently a mixture of short citations and full citations, and it would be helpful if they were consistently one format or the other. It would make sense I think to make refs 2, 37, 38, 67 short citations and add the books to the bibliography. (
WP:CITEVAR
discusses this but I'm completely clear that it's a requirement for GA)
I'm assuming this one is not needed for GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Buttigieg who edited these catalogues is a different person from Joseph Buttigieg the scholar. The former was a stamp dealer who operated the Sliema Stamp Shop (which closed down recently). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the MaltaPost Philatelic Bureau sent me to an online shop, which I assume is not was intended (see
WP:LINKSTOAVOID
).
I added this link primarily because of the stamp catalogue which is freely available on the website, and also because I think it's suitable to have a link to the Philatelic Bureau on an article about Malta's stamps/postal history. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the policy again, and it's web pages that Wikipedia objects to, not websites. I reckon the link can therefore stay. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the Malta Philatelic Society appears to be an online form, is there a more useful link that you can find?
That link must have changed since I added it. According to an archived copy dated April 2020, at the time the link contained some information about the society. The society does not seem to have any online presence at the moment, so for the time being I replaced the link of the form with the archived copy. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
Postal History
Ref 5 (Cassar) – the first PDF link appears to lead to a domain website. Also, could you point me to the right page for the reference in the first paragraph?
I replaced the URL with another link for the same article on a different website. The reference in the first paragraph refers to the following text: "An interesting aspect of the old Quarantine System was the disinfection, as then understood, of letters from overseas. Arrangements for this procedure were already in existence in Malta by 1678..." (the beginning of the fourth paragraph on page 374).
The part which links this to the plague of 1676 and the belief that paper could carry the plague is from the other source (ref 4): "The practice of quarantine and disinfection of letters (paper was thought to carry plague) was then instituted in Malta..." --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 (TofM) – the knight’s full name Grand Master Ramon Perellos y Roccaful is given by both the wikilink and the source. Should the article text be amended?
I used
Ramón Perellós because currently that's the title of the Wikipedia article about him (although it was actually "Ramon Perellos y Roccaful" until January 2020). The Grand Master is usually referred to simply as "Perellos" rather than "Perellos y Roccaful", and things named after him use the former (eg. Casa Perellos, Perellos Fountain). Personally I have no particular preference over using one or the other, but if you think the full name is more appropriate let me know and I can use that. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No, leave it as it is, you know what you're talking about, Xwejnusgozo. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, a handstamp reading Malte was introduced. - Ref 6 (Reviews) doesn’t appear to verify this text.
The source states "the French administration of 1798-1900 with a reproduction of the first public postal service letter to France and with the first known postmark "Malta";" This contains two errors: the French occupation of Malta ended in 1800 not 1900, and the postmark read "Malte" in French not "Malta" in English (or Italian or Maltese). This is also confirmed by reference 8 which appears after the next sentence in the article (last paragraph on page 33 of the source includes the text "There is also the rare but well-known 1798 cover with the MALTE hand-stamp, otherwise known as the Loaf of Bread..."). Perhaps it's best to remove reference 7 (Reviews) in this case? --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would avoid including any sources that could sow confusion, so that means removing Ref 7 (Reviews). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 1859, it was decided that a Malta postage stamp would be issued for local mail,… - citation needed.
I had missed this - thanks. I added the following source: Bonnici, Alfred (December 2010). "The Queen Victoria Malta Half Penny Yellow Postage Stamp". Journal of the Malta Philatelic Society. 39 (3). Malta Philatelic Society: 4.. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 16 & 31 (Universal Postal Union) don't appear to have any information relating to the text.
The references (now 17 & 32) are there because they include the dates when Britain and Malta respectively joined the UPU. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - I keep forgetting to click on 'Archived'. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 (Bugeja) doesn’t appear to verify the text.
I removed this reference since the opening date of the museum is already cited in another source (ref 39). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On hold for a week
I'm placing the article on hold until 2 September to allow time for the comments I have made to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks ready to pass, I'll do another check through to look for minor points. It's great work on your part. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:SANDWICH for where I am coming from), and being an image that doesn't directly inform the text any more than the image opposite to it, imo it should go. Do you agree? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your edits and for uploading some images! I disagree with only one (rather minor) point – you removed the mention of EUROPA stamps in the "Postage stamps" section and added the following (bolding mine) in the "Postal stationery" section:
Since 1980, Malta has issued postal cards for philatelic purposes. Most of them have an imprinted version of EUROPA stamps—originally issued in 1971 as sheets and from 2006 in booklets—but there are a few exceptions which have actual adhesive stamps affixed instead of imprinted versions.
This is not entirely correct since EUROPA stamps were issued only in sheets from 1971–2005, and in both sheets and booklets since 2006. In addition, since 1980 many postal cards which have an imprinted version of each year's EUROPA stamps have been issued. (For example, these are the different versions of the 2012 EUROPA stamps from the MaltaPost Philatelic Bureau website: sheet, booklet and postal card). Therefore, I think it's best to leave the mention of the EUROPA stamps and booklets in the "Postage stamps" section and the postal cards in the "Postal stationery" section, and I just edited this part accordingly.
I also made a couple of other minor changes, including removing the Birżebbuġa PO photo according to your suggestion and replacing the image of the 1860 Halfpenny Yellow in the "Postage stamps" section with an image of a different printing of the same stamp (so as not to repeat the image at the top of the article). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Now passing, and congratulations on producing a great article. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
b (lists):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
