Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange helmet/archive1

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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2018 [1].

Benty Grange helmet[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Benty Grange helmet is unique. Its horn-and-iron construction is like no other Anglo-Saxon helmet; its use of myriad decorative techniques on a single ornamental object is unparalleled by any other Anglo-Saxon object, let alone helmet; and in a syncretic display emblematic of the slow spread of Christianity across pagan Britain, its boar-crest looks down at a cross on the nasel. It would have been a sight to behold in its day.

The helmet may have been discovered 170 years ago, but is sparsely published; the most in-depth treatment was only prepared as part of an effort to study another helmet. This article thus pulls from multiple sources to create what is the most comprehensive take on the helmet available. It passed a good article review in March, has been refined since then, and is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • As usual, this looks interesting, will have a look soon. Note that I ran the citationbot, which did some good things, such as updating isbns, but also removed publishers from journal articles, which you may not be so happy about. I think it is generally discouraged to add publisher for journal articles, which is why the bot removes then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think it's a losing battle to keep trying to retain journal publishers (someone mentions it every nomination), so no worries there.
  • The mention of Bos longifrons intrigued me, because it is hard to find any recent literature on this. It appears to be a now defunct name for ancient British cattle, which I think could be specified. Here is a recent source stating "Bos longifrons is a now-defunct term that used to be applied to the small Iron Age cattle kept by the British before and during the Roman period. It is now accepted that all humpless domestic cattle are of a single species, Bos taurus, and that they all descend ultimately from the aurochs, Bos primigenius."[2] Older sources also call it the "Celtic short-horn":[3][4]
  • Yes, good point. There's also a discussion here about it. See what you think of the edits and footnote that I've made. It's slightly confusing, because Bruce-Mitford 1974 (relating c. 1948 observations) seems to rule out modern cattle in saying that "The horn traces surviving on the helmet were examined at the National History Museum by the Keeper of Zoology, Dr F. C. Fraser, and experiments were carried out by softening and spreading a horn from a shorthorn breed. It was clear that a much bigger horned breed of cattle must have been involved in the construction of the helmet. This was presumably bos longifrons; and there is no need to postulate aurochs. Horn is of fibrous structure and as a protective substance has the advantage of being light and tough. Whalebone (baleen) was ruled out as the substance employed on the helmet." Perhaps Bruce-Mitford is simply saying that longhorn cattle must have been used, and his 1948/1974 understanding was that in 650 AD, the form of longhorn cattle prevalent in the area was bos longifrons.
  • There seem to be a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script[5], if I haven't mentioned that before.
  • Thanks, installed it and removed most of them.
  • "Contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt" Contemporary is very vague, why not just mention the year?
  • Removed "contemporary," and added information to the text. Woodcuts of the watercolors were published in 1849, and though Jewitt probably painted them the year before, close to when the barrow was excavated, nothing I have found says as much. Jewitt may even have participated in the excavation, as he did with others by Bateman, but Bateman had a reputation for failing to credit the contributions of others (even his friends, apparently), so the exact dimensions of Jewitt's involvement are a bit unclear.
It might be good enough to give a publishing date in the caption. Doesn't need to be exactly when it was painted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be along the lines of "published as a woodcut in 1849," since I don't know when the first publication of the actual watercolors was (it may not even have been until they were digitized).

Thanks for jumping in and taking a look, FunkMonk. You've managed to highlight a number of issues that I myself have found confusing, thus forcing me to take a deeper look. Hopefully now it's more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You link nape at second rather than first mention in the description.
  • Fixed.
  • "each between 1 and 2 millimetres thick" I guess there isn't really anything to convert this measurement to?
  • I can't really think of anything—I mentioned this with regards to your nomination of Thalassodromeus, but even as someone used to imperial units, 1–2mm is a lot more intuitive than .04–.08in.
  • Tried mouse-over text, but it didn't work with the links. Generally speaking (especially when there is an explanatory link) I prefer not to use explanatory parentheticals, especially when there isn't (I think) too much jargon in the article to begin with.
Per the "don't make readers chase links"[6] MOS guideline, I would gloss them anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the sentence where dexter and sinister are used the first time to: "It was affixed to the outside of the dexter (wearer's right) side of the brow band, the inside of the sinister (wearer's left) side, and the outside of the nose-to-nape band."
  • "attached the body to an elliptical bronze plate; both sets depict front legs, with forward-facing knees, whereas the rear legs of actual boars have backward-facing knees." technically, boars have forwards facing knees on the hindlegs as well, what we sometimes call the "knees" here are really the ankles. What does the source say specifically? As you can see here, the actual knee is somewhat hidden in the body[7], which is perhaps why the ankle is called the knee (similar to how it is sometimes incorrectly referred to in birds). Likewise, there are no "knees" on the front legs, rather an elbow and wrist, as in all other limbed animals. But it seems like the wrist is called "knee" in domestic pig terminology (which would be agricultural rather than "proper" anatomical jargon), according to this diagram.[8]
  • Another point on which I was a bit confused, and may have Googled too quickly. The source says "Artistically, the legs were not very realistic. The animal has been given two sets of 'front' legs (see photo prior to treatment) (Plate 64a). That is to say, the back legs have 'knees' in front instead of at the back." My reading of this is that one mould was used twice, ignoring the slight differences—of which these so-called "knees" are one—between between front and back legs. (As suggested by the replica boar, it may also be that neither of the sets of legs was particularly lifelike, but the front legs were a closer approximation than the back legs.) With all this in mind, how would you phrase it in the article?
As the source doesn't go that much into detail, I'd just keep it as simple as possible, with as little anatomical interpretation as possible (if you can stick to which direction the limbs bend). For example, saying that the knees should bend backwards in the hindlegs is simply incorrect (as again, that's the ankle/heel, due to many four limbed animals walking on their toes). FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does this read? "both sets depict front legs, bent forwards without account for the differences between a boar's fore and hind limbs."
Looks better to me, I would say "anatomical differences" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "overned by the Pecsæte, and so the Benty Grange barrow may memorialise a member of this tribe" You could specify that it was supposedly an Anglo Saxon tribe, as I had to go to the page to figure it out.
  • Done.
  • "contained two inhumations" Could be explained in parenthesis, I have no idea what that is...
  • Changed to "burials."
  • "Approximately six feet to the west" Why spell out numbers here, and no conversion?
  • Beats me. Changed.
  • You could present Llewellynn Jewitt further (occupation). Other people mentioned could be presented too.
  • Is there something more specific to the Anglo Saxons than just "pagan" to link to? Anglo-Saxon paganism?
  • Done.
  • The infobox has this "warning": ‹ The template Infobox artifact is being considered for merging. › I wonder if it can be replaced with whatever it is going to be meregd with.

FunkMonk, I think I've responded to everything above. Thanks for the good comments—you've tended to pick out parts of the article that were unclear because I myself was unclear when writing them, helping make a stronger article as a result. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed two more comments above, I should be ready to support when they are addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk, adopted both of those suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now, looking forward to the next helmet! FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Mostly looks in good order, but ...

  • "It is one of only six known Anglo-Saxon helmets and was discovered before those from Sutton Hoo, York, Wollaston, Shorwell, and Staffordshire." Wouldn't it be simpler to say it was the first to be discovered?
  • That sentence is trying to name the others, note that the Benty Grange helmet was found first, and note their scarcity. Doing all three without sounding (too) clunky is something I have had some difficultly with. Changed to (now the forth wording, I think): "It is the first Anglo-Saxon helmet to be discovered; only five others, from Sutton Hoo, York, Wollaston, Shorwell, and Staffordshire, have been found since."
  • "Within this context, the helmet is classified as one of the "crested helmets" used in Northern Europe from the 6th to 11th centuries AD." I'm not quite sure what "within this context" signifies?
  • Removed.
  • "and the inside with cloth or leather, although the organic material has since decayed." The latter portion of this doesn't seem to be sourced in the body.
  • Added ", since decayed" to "The inside of the helmet was most likely originally lined with leather or cloth, since decayed." As for the horn, it is already sourced with "No horn now survives."
  • "The core of body" is this proper phrasing?
  • Nope. Now "The core of its body."
  • "Such protection certainly seems to have been among the armament of the well heeled." Are helmets armament? I might consider losing the "well heeled", not so much because I object to it generally, but because it may come across as a joke, head to foot or some such. Instead use some equivalent.
  • Changed to "armour." I think I looked it up when I originally wrote it, and saw that a (probably loose) definition of "armament" included military equipment, generally. But you're right, it's a stretch. As for "well heeled," I'm not sure the pun is a problem—wish I could take credit for it!
  • "At the centre of the barrow was suggested a body, " This sounds a bit vague. Also, the sentence might benefit from being split.
  • Changed to "Bateman suggested a body once lay at the centre of the barrow." Do you mean turning the semicolon into a period, or splitting the sentence earlier?
  • "In 1861 Bateman died in his fortieth year" I would state his age rather than have the reader guess whether he was 39 or 40.
  • Changed to "In 1861 Bateman died at 39."
  • "other objects from the family; other pieces" I would not use "other" twice so closely together.
  • Changed to "purchased objects, including the helmet, from the family; other pieces."
  • "the Benty Grange grave goods." I've never met "grave goods" before. Are you comfortable that the reader will know what is meant without having to rely on context?
  • Added a link to grave goods, but I do think it's a fairly commonly (or at least intuitively) understood term.
  • I'm not clear on where we are going with the sentence on Sutton Hoo. Are you sure we need all that information on Bruce-Mitford's background?
  • "Roman rule of Britain had brought with it the Catholic Church, and the Roman departure in 410 AD had brought about its decline; thereafter Christianity in Britain diverged into distinct and unrecognisable forms, or met the influx of Anglo-Saxons from continental Europe and was replaced with Germanic traditions that had been repressed for the last 400 years." The sentence might benefit from splitting.
  • Do you mean turning the semicolon into a period, or splitting it more substantially?
  • "once King Æthelberht of Kent gave them purchase to stay and preach.[108] " I'm not sure what "gave them purchase" means.
  • It's being used as a noun, "a hold or position on something for applying power advantageously." Does this seem an inappropriate use of the word?
  • "coming after La Tène examples in the 4th century BC, Gaulish examples three centuries later," unless it is a technical term that can't be altered, I would change one "examples", perhaps to "specimens".
  • Good point, done.
  • "on the turn of the millennium" I understand where you go with this, but it may be confusing to the reader.
  • That phrasing is really just a way of avoiding getting into the debate over when the Gundestrup cauldron was made. The previous sentence, with a reference to Tacitus "writing around the 1st century AD," should hopefully make clear which millennium we are talking about.
  • "may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule.[106]" You could get away without saying "from Europe". The previous sentence makes it clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look....queries below...

It weighed about 1.441 kg (3.18 lb), as determined by the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica - surely this means the replica weighed that. As we don't know exactly, it (maybe) should be rewritten as - "Based on the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica, it has been calculated/estimated to weigh 1.441 kg (3.18 lb)"?
Changed to "It probably weighed about 1.441 kg (3.18 lb), the weight of the Weston Park Museum's 1986 replica."
The silver cross is 3.9 cm (1.5 in) long by 2 cm (0.79 in) wide - should it be 0.8 in?
Done.
The barrow comprises a circular central mound approximately 15 m (49 ft) - should be 50 ft?
Done.

Otherwise reads soundly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Casliber, made your suggested changes as indicated above. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review while I am at it...[edit]

  • FN 3 - (used 7 times) material cited and faithful to source (source does say lined with sheepskin pad, article says leather or cloth. I guess leather is sheepskin..? also source says "some protection", article says "functional protection" - possibly a little generous. Would modify with "some/a degree of..." or something that says that the protection wasn't particularly good...)
  • How does just "provided protection" sound, without assigning it a degree of efficacy? It’s all a bit speculative, so maybe less is more here. As to sheepskin/cloth/leather, my memory is that footnote #4, which also supports this sentence, says cloth or leather. As you have pointed out, leather is more general than—but still encapsulates—sheepskin, and due to the speculative nature of this I figured the more general term was safer.
  • Well, "provided protection" without a qualifier makes it sound like an unequivocal "yes it protects" (as presumably a helmet should), but the "some" impresses (in a way) as damning with faint praise, and hence it is an important qualifier. I really think adding "a degree of" or some adjective indicating partiality is important here. We can ask a third party though (@Wehwalt and FunkMonk:) and if others agree it's sufficient as is I will go with consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 48 - material cited and faithful to source
  • FN 76 - material cited and faithful to source
  • Earwigs is clear
  • formatting looks consistent.

Thanks for also providing the source review, Casliber. Responses are above. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok I am happy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn[edit]

A quick comment: "The lowland areas of Britain, including the Peak District" The Peak District isn't a lowland area? And I don't know the South West that well, but I don't normally think of Cornwall and Devon as "highland" areas - especially not compared to the Scottish Highlands, Snowdonia or Peak District! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, that is sourced to Mayr-Harting 1991 (Google Books preview with different pagination available here; see last paragraph on p. 33). The paragraph in question reads:

Besides the question of the Britons living under Anglo-Saxon rule, there is the question of the British kingdoms remaining in the north and west of the island. What of the progress of Christianity in these kingdoms during the period of Saxon invasion and settlement and before the arrival of St. Augustine at Canterbury in 597? This is where the distinction between the Lowland Zone of Britain, with which the present book is mainly concerned, and the Highland Zone comes in. Sir Cyril Fox made this distinction familiar in his The Personality of Britain (1932) (where he included in his definition of the Highland Zone the Pennines and the Peak District of Derbyshire, whereas we confine ourselves here more narrowly to what is roughly present-day Scotland, Wales and Devon and Cornwall). He pointed out that the Lowland Zone was an easy prey to invaders and so to the imposition of new cultures, and that while it was suffering such incursions, the Highland Zone might be able (as the archaeology of its prehistory testifies) to preserve its cultural unity on an older basis and to engage in quite independent activity. This is the real clue to the history of British Christianity in the fifth and six [sic] centuries, and to that of Ireland as well, by reason of the historic role of the Irish Sea as a great Celtic lake.

Do you disagree with this? It seems that there are different understandings of what constitutes an upland or lowland area; perhaps Mayr-Harting considers in the definition whether the geography would allow for a successful defense, although he does not say. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, very interesting. It's clear from this that Mayr-Harting recognises that his usage is not universal - it still sounds very strange to me to call the Peak Distrist "lowland". I wonder if you could unobtrusively attribute the view/terminology to the author in question? I doubt I'd be the only reader to be puzzled by it! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Other than the weird highland/lowland thing, this strikes me as a fantastic article. I made a series of edits that should be double-checked. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we still need an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All images appear to be used in appropriate places and have ALT text. Copyright wise you may want to specify that the helmet itself is too old to be copyrightable, as the licenses I currently see are about the photo. I presume that the reconstructions (which may have their own copyrights) are old enough to have their copyrights lapsed? https://www.idigsheffield.org.uk/object.asp?ref=Jewitt_S9B is given as a source on one file and is apparently broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Fixed the link. What license would you recommend for the helmets? --Usernameunique (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted? I'd say to leave the current licenses in place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Ian Rose, looks like the images are taken care of. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Benty_Grange_helmet/archive1&oldid=875783467"