Talk:Benty Grange hanging bowl/GA1

Passed. simongraham (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article, particularly as I think I remember seeing one of the remaining two at Weston Park Museum on one of my too rare visits to Sheffield. I will start the review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The text is well written and appropriate for a general audience.
97.4% of authorship is one user, Usernameunique.
It was ranked a C class article by Nick Moyes on 4 November 2019 but has seen substantial improvement since then.
Consider rewording "They have been variously suggested to have originally been used as lamps or lamp reflectors".

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider rewording "The Benty Grange escutcheons are some of the very few to have yellow rather than red enamel".

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check spelling (for example "paralleled" has an extra "l").

The article is written in British English, hence the extra 'l'. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, the word is spelt "paralleled" in the UK. (e.g. "1841 W. Spalding Italy & Italian Islands Islands 187 For the Italians, the Middle Ages were an era of such grandeur as even their ancient history had not paralleled." "1946 D. C. Peattie Road of Naturalist (U.K. ed.) v. 52 We paralleled the fresh alluvial green winding along the Sevier's course." [[1]]. simongraham (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the OED lists both forms, including the 1986 example "This parallelled portion on the back sticks allows the bow to go down far enough without leaving unsightly gaps around the holes on the top edge." And Wiktionary lists it as the UK spelling: see here and here. Chiswick Chap, Johnbod, or Serial Number 54129, any advice on this one? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use OED with one L here but what the 'l it's only a letter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pun. It's not a hill I am prepared to die on. simongraham (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use "ll" personally. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check-Plagarism confirms that there is no plagarism.
Layout follows the Manual of Style guidelines, including a reference section.
The references are relevant. However, there is a reliance on primary sources for some of the data. Please consider replacing these with secondary sources.

I think the only primary sources are those about the farmhouse being renovated—it's a minor point, and I don't think there's much better to replace them with. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the reference to Peak Venues Benty Grange is a primary source. It reads like an advert so that should definitely be replaced. However, there are also others (e.g. Peak District Applications 2012). Are any of the secondary sources able to replace any of the primaries? Incidentally the reference British Museum Faversham 1 does not link to a live page. simongraham (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peak District Applications 2012 is also about the farmhouse being renovated—it's used in the same sentence. Unfortunately, however, these are the sort of minor details that are nice to have but unlikely to be found in academic articles or the like. But for what it's worth, the same sentence and sources appear in Benty Grange helmet, and passed muster during the featured article review. Meanwhile, I've updated the British Museum links for the Faversham escutcheons. The museum seems to update their URLs every couple years and discard the old ones; it's incredibly frustrating. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. Is there a version in archive.org that could be used? simongraham (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is appropriate and neutrally presented.
The article is stable.
The images are all marked with appropriate Creative Commons or Public Domain licenses.

@Usernameunique: Please take a look at my comments and ping me when you would like me to review. simongraham (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, simongraham. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: You are very welcome. I think there are a few things to address. simongraham (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, simongraham. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'll finish the review now. simongraham (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. The prose has been checked for grammar and spelling.

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are generally from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism as confirmed by Check-Plagarism.
It is broad in its coverage
it covers the main aspects of the topic;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It has a neutral point of view
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses and are released under either public domain or Creative Commons licenses;

images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Pass simongraham (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.