Talk:Crosby Garrett Helmet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is really well-written and interesting. I have a few minor suggestions, but nothing major. I am slightly more concerned over the sourcing, however.

Prose, etc:

"is a brass Roman cavalry helmet dating to the late 1st to mid 3rd century AD": Perhaps "dating from between", but not a big deal.

I've amended the wording. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the quotation, is there any real need for references in the lead? Everything is mentioned in the main body and referenced there.

Fair enough, I've left the ref for the quotation but removed the others. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar helmets found in Britain are the Ribchester Helmet (found in 1796), the Hallaton Helmet (found in 2000) and the Newstead Helmet (found in 1905), though it has closer parallels with helmets found in southern Europe.": I think this is slightly off somewhere. Why "though"? The two statements are not really contradictory. And closer parallels than what?

I've reworded this, see if it works for you now. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is an almost complete example of a two-piece Roman cavalry helmet.": Just to clarify, other than the minor things listed in the description, is anything else missing? (Only checking here, no action required)

No, just the minor things. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Only two other Roman helmets complete with visors have been found in Britain.": Why name them in the lead, but not here? The lead suggests similarity; other than the visor, are there any other similarities?

Apparently there are, but the sources I have don't specify them. It will probably be spelled out in more detail when someone publishes a detailed study on the helmet. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing: There are a couple of places where there are referencing errors, which are easily fixed because it is a simple sourcing mix-up. It may be worth checking that there are no more of these.

I'm slightly uncomfortable effectively using the Christie's catalogue for a source on how unique and amazing this helmet is. I also ponder whether source 5 is overuse a little, but I would not insist on any action on either of these points. I would just encourage the nominator to ponder a little as well, particularly before considering taking this forward to FA.

I don't think there's any particular problem with the Christie's catalogue. It doesn't say anything that contradicts the specialists' accounts. Source 5 is necessarily used a lot as it's (in the words of the magazine that published it) "the fullest report yet on its discovery, appearance and modern fate". Only a few specialists saw the helmet before it was sold, and that article is their write-up of it. There literally isn't a better source available yet. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The helmet and visor were cast from an alloy consisting of an average of 82% copper, 10% zinc and 8% tin. This probably represents a low-zinc brass with some tin added to improve the quality of the casting. Some of the fragments show traces of a white metal coating, indicating that the visor would originally have been tinned to give the appearance of silver.": This information is not present in the given ref, but is included in the current ref 5.
"The visor is a cavalry sports type C (H. Russell Robinson classification) or type V (Maria Kohlert classification)": Not in the given reference, but instead in current ref 5.
"The helmet was found in 33 large fragments and 34 small fragments": Not in given source, but in current ref 6.
"the goddess of vengeance and fate; both were often associated with gladiatorial combat and were symbolic agents of death.": Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't find this in the given ref.

I've sorted these out. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing issues (these are the only ones I found; I checked a lot more having found these, but there were no other problems that I could see). I think some of these are way too close for comfort, and it is always far better to be safe than sorry. I would suggest re-wording these quite a lot.

Article: "and was probably cast from scrap metal. The metal has been subject to some leaching during its burial, but when new the visor would have appeared silver and the headpiece would have been a coppery yellow colour."
Source: "It is likely that it was cast from scrap metal; the composition is almost unique for Romano-British copper alloy (these measurements are all from the surface, and may partially reflect leaching of elements such as zinc during burial). When new, the face would have looked silver and the head piece a coppery yellow colour."

Article: "had been detecting with his father in the field and one adjacent for some years but had previously only found a few small artefacts, including some Roman coins."
Source: "The field and one adjacent, both under rough grass, had previously yielded only small artefacts (including a few Roman coins)"

Article: "There was no known Roman garrison in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, but the area was strategically placed on the route to the northern frontier of Roman Britain, and so there would have been a substantial Roman military presence in the area."
Source: "Although no Roman garrisons are documented in the immediate vicinity, the findspot lies in an area with a substantial Roman military presence on a key route leading to the northern frontier."

Article: "The finder did not initially realise that he had found a Roman artefact and thought at first that it was a Victorian ornament. He eventually realised what it was after searching the internet, and consulting dealers and auction catalogues."
Source: 'The finder's first thought was that the object was a Victorian ornament, and only after searching the internet and consulting dealers and auction catalogues did he realise it was Roman."

Article: "Unlike combat gear, which belonged to the army and had to be returned, cavalry sports equipment appears to have been commissioned and bought privately by its wearers. It was evidently retained by them after they completed their service. Both helmets and visors have been found in non-military contexts, as well as in and around forts."
Source: "and unlike combat gear, which the men had to return when their service ended, cavalry sports equipment is likely to have been privately commissioned and bought. Helmets, especially the visor masks, are widely found, not just in and around forts but often in graves and other non-military contexts."

Reworded all of the above. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General:

Images fine.
One dablink: "Spectrometry"

I've no idea which of the possible dabs this should go to, so I've delinked it. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, there are a couple of points about this article which are slightly uncomfortable, and the number of sourcing issues is a concern. However, if these points are addressed, and if the nominator could have a quick check for any similar points I may have missed, I would still be happy to pass as this is a good piece of work. And I am fairly confident that there are few or no other issues in the article. I will place on hold for the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: I think we are more or less OK. The penultimate close paraphrasing issue is still vaguely similar, but to be fair I'm not sure there is a better way to do it. Therefore, I am happy to pass this now. I added one ref to the article to cover the Sports Type C thing, as this one seemed to have been missed out. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]