Talk:Shorwell helmet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments

Images

I've recently fallen foul of this myself, so I'm very sympathetic, but I have some concerns about the image in the lead. The claim is that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", but arguably that's not strictly true. The British Museum might in the future put the helmet on public display, or even allow you access to their archive to take your own photo, however unlikely either of those scenarios may appear. I'm not going to make an isue of it for the purposes of this review, just alerting you to the potential attitude of the more aggressive of the image police.

Thanks, Eric Corbett. I get your point—recently had a discussion with someone who tagged the Emesa helmet photograph for deletion, on similar grounds. That one is hidden in an underground bunker until the Syrian Civil War is over, at which point, presumably, someone can trot over and take a free picture. The administrator who reviewed the image decided that it was "not ... reasonably replaceable" and allowed it to stay (for now), so hopefully a similar view would be taken of the Shorwell helmet photograph, if the issue comes up. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Only the Shorwell helmet and five others stand testament to the excavation of thousands of contemporary graves ..." I don't understand what this is trying to say. In what sense does any number of helmets stand testament to anything?

Thanks for the detailed copy edit, Eric Corbett. I could change the above line to "...stand as testament to...", or to "Despite the excavation of thousands of Anglo-Saxon graves, only six helmets, including the one from Shorwell, have been found, indicating the rarefied status of its owner."

I like your second suggestion, "Despite ...". Eric Corbett 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Williams, Nigel (1992) doesn't appear to have been used in the article.

Removed. It was cited earlier, but no longer. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice piece of work for which I must congratulate you. I think we're done with the review now. Eric Corbett 00:43, 22 January 2018 (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.