Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horncastle helmet fragment/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) 1 June 2019 [1].

Horncastle helmet fragment[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Horncastle helmet fragment is a tiny but interesting slice of Anglo-Saxon history. Its rich construction of silver, gold, and garnets, only hints at the likely richness of the helmet it once adorned; even the richest Anglo-Saxon helmets yet known, from Sutton Hoo and Staffordshire, have more rudimentary crest terminals than the Horncastle fragment. This 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment was purchased for £15,000, and is now on display in Lincolnshire.

This article draws from all available sources to describe the fragment and place it in proper context. It passed a good article review last year, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM[edit]

This fairly brief article is in excellent shape, up to Usernameunique's high standards. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged again, Peacemaker67. Thanks for the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Tim riley[edit]

A most readable and interesting article, clearly written with considerable erudition. I expect to be supporting, but a few minor points on the prose first:

  • "likely was once attached" – unexpected and slightly jarring Americanism. The normal BrE construction is "probably was once attached". Ditto for the four *"likely"s later in the article (although for some reason "most likely" in this construction is not uncommon in BrE although the unadorned "likely" is).
  • Done. Had actually been wondering about this, after this edit by Espresso Addict; before that, I had no idea that there was a difference in usage between probably and likely.
In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
The AmE usage is arguably superior to the BrE, judged by two of Fowler's five criteria: "Prefer the short word to the long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance", but be that as it may, current BrE usage goes for the longer, Romance word. (I'll shut up now.) Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can not be conclusively determined" – "can not" is probably OK but "cannot" is surely the normal way of writing it.
  • Done.
  • "and perhaps York" – this is fine as it stands in the lead, I think, but in the main text it seems to me to call out for a word of explanation – perhaps a footnote – to explain why you say "perhaps".
  • Done.
  • Just what was wanted, I think. Beautifully clear. Thank you. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "venerated, eulogised..." – a splendid line, but to have a quotation like this with no inline attribution leaves it rather in a vacuum. Helpful to your readers to put it in context by identifying the author: "as the archaeologist XYZ writes..." or some such.
  • "turn of the millennium Gundestrup" – as " turn of the millennium" is used as a compound attributive adjective I think it would benefit from hyphenation.
  • Done. Had already done this in the related sections just mentioned, but must have missed this one.

Nothing of great consequence there. I'll look in again and, I hope, add my support. –Tim riley talk 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments, Tim riley. Adopted all your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleased to support now. Meets the FA criteria in all respects, in my view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading and rereading the article. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, compared to how the rest of the article looks, the last section could probably be split into two paragraphs? Looks a bit like a wall of text now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and set against the skull" Why skull and not head? Makes it seem as if it is depicted as skeletal.
  • That was the wording in the source, but you're right, "head" works just as well. Done.
  • "found by a Mr D. Turner" Being such a recent find, should be possible to find the full name?
  • I've done some searching on this (e.g., looking for members of Lincolnshire metal detecting groups) without much luck. The next step might be to send out a couple "Hey, do you happen to know a Mr. D. Turner" emails, but I'd like to hold off on this for the time being.
  • "As required of found objects" Required for? Otherwise it seems like the object has to do something?
  • Done.
  • Link boar and dragon at first mentions? Also Anglo-Saxon.
  • Done.
  • The full name of the subject is not mentioned anywhere in the article body. Could perhaps be good to mention it at the beginning?
  • Done.
  • Not sure about this but should "in their stable of symbols" be staple?
  • I mean "stable" in the sense of "collection."

FunkMonk, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - that's all I could find, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Didn't notice any license issues. All images appear to be in good sections and have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • all links to sources are working
  • Formats:
  • In the bibliography, the source "Record ID: PAS-5D5B56 - EARLY MEDIEVAL helmet" is listed out of alphabetical sequence.
  • Done.
  • WorldCat provides a OCLC for Chaney: 490832405
  • Added ISBN 0-520-01401-4. Technically it's a 9-digit "Standard Book Number", since it's a 1970 book, but adding an extra 0 at the front seems to work.
  • All sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, as required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • This is a first rate article, although I think 'Horncastle boar's head' would be a more informative title than 'Horncastle helmet fragment'.
  • Thanks, Dudley Miles. You may be right about "Horncastle boar's head." The current phrasing is designed to maintain some consistency between articles (see Gevninge helmet fragment; Lokrume helmet fragment; Tjele helmet fragment). Guilden Morden boar does not fit into this consistency, although it is something of a 'named artifact' in the way that the others are not. The biggest danger is probably for fragments that are not necessarily from helmets (see the "?"s in this list)—for now the naming convention seems to work, but I may revisit at some point, especially if I create articles for some of the less clear fragments.
  • Looking again I see you say "probably once attached to the crest of a helmet". As it is not certain I do not think "helmet" should be in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Per Dank, below, the best option seems to be to wait until promotion, and then change the title to "Horncastle boar's head".
  • "turn-of-the-millennium". I took this at first to mean around year 1000, whereas I see you mean turn of BC/AD.
  • 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.
  • I do not think that solves the problem as the previous sentence is in the previous paragraph. How about "late Iron Age"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late Iron Age is, I think, too vague—it also varies by region, so the National Museum of Denmark assigns the cauldron to the Early Iron Age instead. What about a mouseover effect, such as turn-of-the-millennium?
  • I take your point about the different periodicity in Denmark but I still do not like turn of the millennium. More importantly, the source you cite, Foster, does not suggest a date for the cauldron. How about "probably dating to the end of the last millennium BC and citing [2], which dates it to between 150 BC and the birth of Christ. This source, the National Museum of Denmark, says that it was probably made in southwest Romania or northwest Bulgaria, so found in Denmark is a bit misleading. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the twentieth". It might be worth adding that the twentieth was stationed in Britain (Foster, p. 19).
  • Turned into "including the England-based twentieth," which based on the links seems a fairly uncontroversial point; I may need to look for another source for this though, since Foster (based on the Google snippet view, since I don't have it at hand) mentions them being stationed in Wales for a time, not England.
  • Foster (which I have borrowed) says their HQ was Chester but they were probably also at the legionary fortress at Usk, Monmouthshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think you can say English-based. I would prefer "which was based in Britain". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition". I would delete the word "nonetheless"
  • Done.
  • "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period, as represented by the boars from Benty Grange, Wollaston, Guilden Morden, and Horncastle, 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.". This correctly quotes Foster, but the word "reintroduction" implies that there was a Germanic tradition in pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, and this cannot be right. So far as I can discover neither Foster nor any other writer says that there was German influence on Iron Age Britain. Leslie Webster in Anglo-Saxon Art treats the Germans and Celts as separate peoples and cultures. She discusses Celtic influence and says that Celtic style ornament appears on eighth century Anglo-Saxon metalwork, albeit rarely (p. 105). Maybe Foster meant the reintroduction of the boar tradition and used the word 'German' in error? Webster also says that the German peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons, were strongly influenced by Roman culture in their homeland before they came to Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My memory of this line in Foster is that it is fairly cursory, and I could understand it being inaccurate as a result; after all, the point is tangential to the larger work. It may take a couple days to track down Webster—the only circulating copy nearby is unavailable—but if you think this would be solved in the interim by simply removing "reintroduction," I am happy to do that.
  • Done.
  • Sorry for the delay on this; I had meant to dig up Foster and Webster, but haven't had the time and let this slip. I've responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I disagree on a couple of points, but neither are deal-breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose by Eric Corbett[edit]

Here are a few issues I spotted on a quick read through:

  • "The 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment ..." The hyphen shouldn't be applied to abbreviated units.
  • Would you not still consider this a compound adjective requiring a hyphen?
  • Why not? I may well be wrong, but I am unclear on what the rule is for compound adjectives with abbreviated units. I would have thought it analogous to something like "San Francisco-based," where there is no hyphen after the first word, but a hyphen after the second.
  • ... whereas "a horse head terminal ... does require a hyphen.
  • Right, added.
  • "The Horncastle helmet fragment represents a boar's head made of silver..." No it doesn't; there is no "boar's head made of silver" that it's a representation of, it's a boar's head made of silver.
  • Reworded, but if we're nitpicking, nor is it "a boar's head made of silver"; it is a silver representation of a boar's head.
  • Perhaps you would have done well to have said that in the first place then? Eric Corbett 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difficulty in doing so is then in working in the gilding and the garnet eyes into the sentence. They seem best treated with the mention of silver, for then the materials are treated together. Indeed, if the sentence read "...is a silver representation of a boar's head, parts of which are gilded, and with garnet eyes." then it would suffer the same flaw that you discussed earlier: It does not represent a boar's head that is gilded and has garnets for eyes, but rather is a representation that uses silver, gilt, and garnets.
  • This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, not an example of how we can't phrase something correctly. Eric Corbett 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a prominent mane runs down the middle and terminates in a blunt snout, indicated by three grooved and gilded lines" "Indicated isn't the right word here, maybe represented?
  • I think "indicated by" is appropriate, meaning "shown," but have reworded to "defined by."
  • "This is also gilded ..." Starting a sentence with "This" always introduces an element of uncertainty about what the subject being referred to actually is.
  • Here, however, any confusion is tempered by the fact that the subject is the immediately preceding word, and that "skull" is the only singular noun in the preceding sentence.
  • What else would you think "this" refers to? it is little different than leading of a sentence with "it."
  • The writing seems a little stuttering in places, as in "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England. It was found by a Mr D. Turner, who was searching with a metal detector. That would be better recast as a single flowing sentence.
  • I agree that that part is a bit choppy, although I wrote it that way because there are already so many parts in the first sentence that it was hard to find a flow. One suggestion is "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 by a Mr. D. Turner, searching with a metal detector in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England., but feel free to suggest others. In particular, I think where it was found is more important than who found it (especially when we only have an initial for his first name), and so would be inclined to place that later.

Eric Corbett 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the quick read through, Eric Corbett. Responses are above. Your comments feel quite minor, so the oppose is surprising. What is your reason for it? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA criteria require that the article complies with the MoS, which it does not. Eric Corbett 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section is inapposite. The guideline means that "40-mm fragment" would be incorrect; it does not mean that "40 mm-long fragment" (or "40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment") would be incorrect. At any rate, it is striking that your example of why you oppose this nomination is how a hyphen is used. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you several other examples above that you have chosen to ignore. Eric Corbett 21:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose has been sufficiently improved to allow me to support this article's promotion now. Eric Corbett 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129[edit]

  • On that, why "It was reported as..."? Surely that gets decided legally if in any doubt, and if not, then just "As found treasure..."?
  • The point I'm trying to emphasize is that the person who found it reported the find.
  • "Dated to"—is this a WP:ENGVAR thing perhaps? I'm thinking either "dating" from or to?
  • Changed to "dates from"
  • "now known as The Collection"—unnecessary detail I think.
  • Perhaps, but I'm trying to make clear that it being in The Collection despite having been bought by the City and County Museum does not reflect a change in ownership.
  • Convert 15 grand; into what is your choice.
  • Any idea of a good template? Tried using "To USD", but that one omits the comma (24000 instead of 24,000).
  • "fragment on display"—public display.
  • Done.
  • I wanted to suggest you link "semi-naturalistic"; but a search shows little of any direct use without getting on toast. The nearest—semi-realism—leads to something both bizarre and crap in equal parts.
  • "formed the terminal"—is this a speciaist term? If not, could we use "peak" or "tip" of a helmet?
  • Maybe not specialist, but widely used. I've changed the first mention to "crest terminal" to make it a little more clear, whereas "peak" or "tip" would make it seem as if it went on the top of the helmet, not near the nose.
  • Done.
  • "associating the boar with the gods"—"associating boars with the gods" would remove repetition.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The elongated head features a prominent mane running down the middle and terminating in a blunt snout"—atm this could be read as saying that the mane ended in a snout; perhaps (assuming I'm reading you right) "The elongated head, which features a prominent mane running down its middle, terminates in a blunt snout".
  • Good point, reworded.
  • "On each side above the snout are more grooved and gilded lines representing the mouth, including pointed tusks"—this almost beats one of mine for complexity; can we adjust to (again, something like) "There are grooved and gilded lines above the snout on both sides; these are thought to represent the mouth, and including pointed tusks". That "more" has to go, though, and I can't think of a way of working the tusks in. Perhaps a separate sentence.
  • Reworded.
  • "Two small eyes are formed with lentoid cabochon garnets set in beaded gold filigree work with a double collar"—chuck in a couple of commas? It's rather breathless.
  • Done.
  • "This is also gilded, and repeats on either side the pattern of a crouching quadruped with three toes on front and back feet and head twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot"—can this be split?
  • Done.
  • Any reason D. Turner is only an initial Turner?
  • Only his first initial was published; see discussion of this point in FunkMonk's review, above.
  • Ah, "subsequently declared treasure"—partially explains my query above; treasure trove.
  • "The City and County Museum, Lincoln—now known simply as The Collection"—clarify that it's the museum that's known as The Collection; atm it's ambiguous, and could imply that this single fragment is "the collection". A very small one  :)
  • I think this one is probably clear enough as is—after all, if the name of the fragment was "The Collection," wouldn't that also be the title of the article?
  • Link the august bodies the MLA and V&A.
  • I'm sure the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association will be proud!
  • "amidst a variety"—perhaps "alongside"?
  • Done.
  • Is AD necessary? MOS:ERA leaves it up to you.
  • I think it's needed in places, considering there is also discussion of the BC years, and because readers' can't necessarily be expected to know what was happening in the 7th century AD, as opposed to in the 7th century BC.
  • "the Sutton Hoo helmet...the Staffordshire helmet"—can you avoid the outbreak of helmets? You've managed it neatly in the following sentence.
  • Done.
  • "Hoo and perhaps York"—I ignored this in the lead, but here, it's begging for an explanation as to why it is only "perhaps" in the York helmet. Can the footnote be expanded a little to explain why the presence or otherwise of a boar is only a possibility?
  • I'll look around a bit more, but I don't recall there being much more discussion than what is in the article already. The main thing, as I understand it, is that the teeth do not look like boar teeth.
  • Done. That one's been on my to-do list for a while.
  • " linguistically Celtic communities"—if you're drawing a distinction with Celts, say so; but are you?
  • "The boar persisted in continental Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain"—I can see what you're getting at, but it seems to be saying that something was happening in one country while something unconnected happened in another...perhaps give actual dates, following which you can fit in "during which time Britain was ruled, etc", if you think it necessary—bearing in mind you mention "Britain through 400 years of Roman rule" in the next sentence.
  • Is this not clarified by the following sentence, "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period ... 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"?
  • " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf poet makes this clear"—well, if it makes it clear, then there's no need for "appears to" earlier; although I assume that what Beowulf says is at the interpretation of scholars, so perhaps something like " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf suggests that...".
  • How about "the Beowulf poet says as much"? I come close to overusing "suggests" as it is.
  • Serial Number 54129, many thanks for that thorough review. I think I've responded to all of your points above, adopting most of them. I couldn't get that template to work, though—perhaps you could add it for me? Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • If the lead text stays like it is, then I agree with Dudley that the article title isn't quite right. I'm bringing this up because changing the article title later on can cause headaches. (I believe the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused here. Are you suggesting renaming it now (because "changing the article title later on can cause headaches"), or after the end of this nomination (because "the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page")?
    • The lead says "attached it to a larger object, such as a helmet", so the lead is taking the position that we don't know that it was attached to a helmet. Assuming no further changes to the lead, then the article title should change, and the sooner the better ... but it will confuse the bots if it changes while a FAC is pending, so let's leave it alone until after the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnbod, any thoughts on "Horncastle helmet fragment" vs. "Horncastle boar's head"? I like the consistency of the "... helmet fragment" article titles, but am leaning towards "boar's head" in this case, under the principle that "helmet fragment" is a conclusion," and "boar's head" is a type of meat description. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, i think it's better to avoid "in)-long". - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to The fragment is 40 mm (1.6 in) long and made of silver., which should do the trick.
Thanks for the comments, Dank. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Support on quality of research, and after minor ces; writing. A real pleasure to read, as always with this nominator. I realise I am posting after many unresolved prose reviews, which I have read through; this support is a culmination of those being resolved, plus bits and pieces since. Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the copyedit and support, Ceoil. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Not much to say. This FAC looks like a well-trodden path. I've made some minor edits.

  • "Garnet" why the cap?
  • That (along with the contractions) were introduced in a copyedit above. Fixed.
  • I might conclude the lede by saying something directly about the fragment.
  • I could add something such as The Horncastle boar was presumably a continuation of this tradition., although much more and I think we would risk going beyond the sources.
  • "The figure's head is twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot, and has three toes on its front and back feet.[1][2]" Since technically the "its" in the final clause refers to "the figure's head" (heads don't have feet, mostly), I would start "The head of the figure ..."
  • "The figure's head" and "the head of the figure" have the same flaw, I think. How about The figure's head is twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot, which, like the front foot, has three toes.?
Looks generally good. I suppose there will be more scholarship directly about the fragment with the passage of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support, Wehwalt. Responses above. Agree re: more scholarship, which is inevitably a slow process. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I note outstanding query related to Serial Number 54129 above but I think that can safely be left to post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2019 (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/Horncastle_helmet_fragment/archive1&oldid=1138463165"