Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

(sculpture) or (Kirby)

Kintetsubuffalo, thanks for your work here. Are you sure that "(sculpture)" is the correct convention for the title of the article? I was relying on WP:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art, which states "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso)." --Usernameunique (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have seen both, usually the artist name is when there are multiple similarly named artworks.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability

The notability of this artwork is not evident from the cited sources. — Editør (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Editør, any reason why Cocke 2013, and the various contemporary sources about its installation, are not enough? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

For each reference:

1: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

2: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

3: sales catalogue, not independent of the artist, does not establish notability

4: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5: does not mention the sculpture

6: does not mention the sculpture

In general, local newspapers can vary in quality and reliability, while some are dedicated to indepentent journalism, others will directly print press releases as articles. I don't know the Ipswitch Star and looking at the source I don't immediately see any issues, but in my opinion this source alone is not enough to establish the sculpture's notability. If no additional sources that establish notability can be found, maybe the relevant content can be moved to the paragraph about the visitor center in Sutton Hoo? — Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Some new sources have been added, but the new sources are about (the background of) the visitor centre, not the sculpture that is the subject of this article. As such they cannot establish the notability of the sculpture. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Editør, does the new section "Themes" address your concerns? It addresses the sculpture in a way that could not be covered in the Sutton Hoo article, relating it both to the actual helmet, and to Kirby's work. Re: the first two sources you mention above (Cocke 2009/2013), I'm not sure where your statement comes from that they cover "all" public sculpture, not just that which is sufficiently notable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Among the cited sources I see no improvement in terms of establishing the sculpture's notability:

1. Cocke 2009: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

2. Cocke 2013: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

3. Axle Arts 2015a: gallery tweet, not independent from the author

4. Ipswich Star 2002: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5. Worsley 2003: does not mention the artwork

6. National Trust: does not mention the artwork

7. Architects' Journal 2000: published 2 years before the artwork was made

8. Dawson 2002: undetermined, because I have no access

9. Kennedy 2002: does not mention the sculpture

10. Axle Arts 2015b: gallery catalogue, not indenpendent from the author

11. Cocke 2013: see 2

12. Williams 1992: published 10 years before the artwork was made

13. Bruce-Mitford 1972: published 30 years before the artwork was made

14. Williams 1992: see 12

15. ArtParkS: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

16. Bath Contemporary: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

I am putting back the warning and I am going to nominate the article for deletion, so others can weigh in. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge

The discussion has closed as keep. My rationale for a merge with Rick Kirby was only as an alternative to outright deletion. Since this article is being kept, there is little point in a merge and I will not pursue it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Usually these are closed as merge so I was surprised by the outcome, however I'm not going to pursue a DRV or the merge proposal. Szzuk (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

2 people wanted to delete, 3 people wanted to keep, 6 people wanted merging or redirect (counting a merge vote for Prince of Thieves). A more reasonable outcome of the AfD would have been merge. – Editør (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It should have closed merge, so I support a merge but I contribute to article deletions almost exclusively, so it isn't a biggie for me. If this were to go to DRV I think it would get endorsed but you can proceed if you think appropriate. As you wish to pursue the merge discussion the notability template should stay in place until it is concluded. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned the issue at User talk:Joe Roe#Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture). – Editør (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I will make the position clear. The AfD was closed as keep, that is a consensus. The notability tag will stay off the article. I would recommend either: a new AfD or, a RM, either way, a RM or AFD tag can be used, but not the notability tag. (it is also possible I would support a RM.) Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The AfD asked for deletion based on a lack of established notability, this is not the same as the notability warning: the notability of the article has still not been established by cited sources. – Editør (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Also see Help:Maintenance template removal. – Editør (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The correct tag would be something source related like refimprove or another of the more specific tags related to a dispute. By definition the AfD being closed as keep means it is judged fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and therefore notable. The Afd resolves the issue of notability. Therefore tagging for a notability issue now is incorrect. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I'd ever read the notability template closely until not long ago, a close reading appears to indicate while a merge discussion is underway it should stay. Perhaps it should have the merge template as an alternative. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• So there are lots of templates for everything, but some that could be used instead are {{More footnotes}}, {{Primary sources}}, {{More citations needed}}, {{Third-party}}, {{Unreliable sources}} and {{refimprove}}, depending on what exactly you think the issue is. It is quite clear from the policy, and from Template:Notability/doc#Removing_this_tag that after an AfD, the notability tag should not be used. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• What's mild steel? Can this be explained or linked?

• Linked to Carbon steel#Mild or low-carbon steel.

• "fierce presence" and "whoom-factor!" look like quotes, where are they from?

• Cited.

• Speaking of which, a statement like "Steel is Kirby's favoured medium, giving him a "whoom-factor!" seen in Sutton Hoo Helmet" needs to be unpacked. How does steel provide a "whoom-factor", and how is that reflected in the sculpture? If that's someone's opinion, you need to say whose.

• Reworded and added a bit of explanation. The National Trust was the one who said it has a "wow factor" (which is close enough to Kirby's term, "whoom factor", to be equated), which I can say if you think necessary; it’s attrubuted in the body of the article, however.

• "The sculpture is also illustrative of Kirby's figural oeuvre" also needs to be unpacked. Is "figural oeuvre" a technical term with a specific meaning? If so, explain it as a technical term. If not, is it possible to reword to make that clearer for the layman?

• Rephrased.

Background

• Can the second sentence be broken up somehow? It's quite lengthy.

• Changed the semicolon to a period.

• Could you clarify the importance of the Beowulf connection for readers who might not be familiar with it?

• Added a clause, can add more if you think it needs more.

• Is there any more information available about the making of the helmet? No problem if it's not available but I'd love to see detail about the process or the artist's thinking.

• Nothing that I’ve been able to find, despite an extensive search. I also emailed both Kirby and the National Trust some time back, but didn’t get a response from either.

• Along that line, what did Kirby get paid for the helmet?

• Don't know. Looked for this also as it may be public information, but didn’t find anything; any suggestions?

• Do we know who bought the maquette?

• No idea (or even whether it was sold at all), and the gallery would probably be hesitant to say if asked.

Description

• I feel like this section either needs to be expanded somehow, or merged in with one of the other two (probably "Themes").
• I'm not sure what other detail could be added here - maybe how it was colored red, or how the plates are held together (looks like a scaffolding?).

• Added the steel frame, which means the section now includes pretty much everything that’s in a source. Beyond that, "Themes" could be made a subsection of "Description" if you think that’s better.

Themes

• "Fierce presence" gets mentioned three times in the article but it's never expanded on what exactly that means, or why it's important. It just feels like it gets so much emphasis for so little informational payoff.

• Removed the third use. There’s not much more in the source that expands upon what a "fierce presence" is, but I think it’s somewhat self-explanatory, and that many would agree that whatever a fierce presence is, Sutton Hoo Helmet has it.

• "effected from 1970 to 1971 by Nigel Williams" - awkward. People don't usually "effect" things, we build them or design them or make them.

• Changed to "reassembled".

• "evoking the way an archaeologist would reconstruct an object." Your first and second clauses describe an object, your third describes a person. How about "evoking an object reconstructed by an archaeologist," to make it consistent?

• Done.

• Same concerns about "figural oeuvre" as above.

• Is this not explained by the following sentence, "Much of Kirby's work focuses on the human face and form..."?

• Can you really say that a sculpture of a mask has a mask-like quality? Is that not redundant?

• Changed to "unemotive".

• Third sentence, starting "Kirby also works in steel" is tortured. You're all twisted up in commas and sub-clauses. "Kirby turned to steel for what he saw as "whoom-factor" and "the ability to go huge" is a far simpler way of saying the same thing.

• Rephrased along your lines.

• Fourth sentence doesn't need a "likewise".

• Removed.

• Are there any more reviews of the work? It would be good to see a greater variety of critical reception.

• Nothing that I’ve been able to find.

On the whole it isn't bad, but I think it could use some work before being promoted to Good status. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Premeditated Chaos. I think I’ve responded to all your points above, please let me know what you think. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique, it's looking better. Remaining thoughts: I still think the Description section could be merged with Themes (but perhaps keep the Description title). It's so short, and much of the content in Themes is concerned with the appearance of the helmet ("it emulates the fragmentary appearance..."), so it fits together fairly naturally.

"Figural oeuvre" still reads to me like art-world jargon. The meaning of the phrase is not immediately clear to the layman. Actually, the more I re-read that sentence, the more I find it redundant - the Description section has already told us the helmet is steel and the next sentence explains the focus of his work much more clearly. The only "new" fact there is that steel is Kirby's favored medium. You could migrate that fact elsewhere into the paragraph...you know what, I'm going to just be BOLD and merge it to show you what I'm thinking. Feel free to revert me if you really hate it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Premeditated Chaos, looks great—you're right that the "Description" and "Themes" sections go well together. Anything else that you'd like me to adjust? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I'm glad you're cool with it. As I was writing my response I realized I was literally rewriting the paragraph in my head so it seemed neater to just go ahead with it :) I think the remainder of my concerns have been addressed, so if you're ok with keeping the section merge as-is, I'd say this is a pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Propose merge into the main article per the above section.
  Congrats on the GA, by the way, Usernameunique. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What? I wasn't proposing a merge into any other article, I was proposing the merge of the "Themes" and "Descriptions" sections, which I have already done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Premeditated Chaos, thanks for reviewing and passing this. Serial Number 54129 is having a bit of fun in reliving this article's history—the article survived nominations for both a deletion and a merge before I nominated it here. Do you think it would stand a chance at FAC? It’s extremely short, but despite much searching, I’ve been unable to find any other information about it. —Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, sorry. I was lost there :P I'm not sure if it'd make it through FAC, it's really short. But you could always hit up peer review first to see what they think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Coloured red"?

Do we mean "painted"? If we do why not just say it? --90.253.62.91 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Per the source, it is made of "[s]mall mild steel plates, coloured red." It is possible, of course, that it was painted, but it is also possible that another method was employed, such as adding something to the steel. "Coloured" is a general explanation that accounts for whichever method was used. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to add anything to steel to make it red. It looks too bright to be a rust coating (which is all the rage in sculpture; cf. Angel of the North) so that leaves paint. It just seems somewhat odd not to state the nature of the colouring. --90.253.62.91 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's simply because I don't know, and a source doesn't say, for sure. I may have the opportunity to ask Kirby a couple questions in the coming weeks, and if so, I will ask. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Source for it still hanging above the entrance?

The sentence "As of 2019 it remains above the doors, dominating the entrance" is cited to a 2002 source, so it isn't really verified as written. Ordinarily I'd assume this was OK, but given that the visitor centre has undergone a large-scale revamp this year I think we should find an up-to-date cite for this. It was also raised at WP:ERRORS that the sculpture is outside just one of several buildings, but it's hard to be sure based on the sourcing currently in the article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Plot diagram on page 7 here makes it very clear that the exhibition hall is within the wider confines of the visitor centre. Kevin McE (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, added Russell 2019 as a source. The 2002 source is being used for the "dominating the entrance" portion of that sentence, but, as you say, doesn't speak to the first part of the sentence. Meanwhile, Google's street view shows the sculpture still up as of October 2018. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: aha, thanks for that, but the renovation was this year so even October 2018 isn't conclusive. And I have new evidence to present: [1] shows what looks like the same helmet, but it's now in its own concrete hut, somewhere in the grounds. Not sure if we can get a source on exactly where that is...? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"somewhere in the grounds", therefore within, not outside, the whole complex. And given that there is no building called the visitor centre, and that the term visitor centre must apply to the whole complex, within, not outside, the visitor centre. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well caught, Amakuru. And using the same album, here is what the exhibition hall looks like now. I've added that it was moved to the article, using a tweet from the National Trust as the source. Hopefully a better source (and photograph! I just asked the person on Flickr if they would license it) will come along, but hopefully that will do for now.

Kevin McE, thanks for your contribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, just an update to let you know that there is now a better source, found by DrKay: link. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Photograph

This article currently only has photographs of the sculpture in its old location at the Sutton Hoo visitor centre, despite the fact that it was moved in 2019. I haven't been able to find an updated photograph with an appropriate license, such as from Geograph or Flickr. By any chance, does anyone have a photograph—or the ability to take a photograph—of the relocated sculpture? Mass ping of Wikipedians in Suffolk: Comnenus, Crouch, Swale, Edchilvers, EricPZ, FoleyTobin, Frinton100, Jack1956, JonathanEx, JuliApennine, Kevinalewis, Leutha, Lukefulford, MBerrill, Meenie, Phil Holmes, Qazwsx777, Ratarsed, SandsideGiles, Spidergareth, Stepat, Steve James, ThurstenEgorGreene, Tractorboy60, Valmayuk, VolaciousEditor, Wrcmills. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to any, none of the Commons images appear to be post 2019. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we know where is has moved to? I visited in Feb. 2020 but don't have a photo. If it is outside I could go to see if I can get one tomorrow, after that we're in Tier 4.Steve James (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve James. That would be great if you're able to. It's definitely outside; this is what it looks like now. According to the National Trust, the sculpture is "waiting to greet you as you arrive", so it is likely by the entrance. Looking at Google Maps, it looks like it might be by the car park, at 52.094587N, 1.341976E.

By the way, if you're able to go would you mind also taking a close-up photograph of the placard by the sculpture (visible in the above link)? It doesn't look like it says much, but it would still be nice to read. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some pictures on Wikimedia Commons including the placard. I did wonder as I was driving home if I should have also taken a shot from a bit further away. If you want something like that then I can always return another time.

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Front View

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Front View (cropped)

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Front View Without Concrete Suround

At Information Plate about The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Back View

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Diagonal Right View

The Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture by Rick Kirby in post 2019 location, Diagnonal Left View

Steve James (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

These photos are great, Steve James, thanks very much for heading over and taking them! Really nice composition, too. If you do find yourself back there a photo from a bit further away might be nice as well, but no need to go out of your way to do so; the photo I've placed in the article (the second shown here), in particular, frames the sculpture nicely. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)