Talk:Warren Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Isn't it at the British Museum in London? That's where I saw it in 2000. Haiduc 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me any more information about the exhibition at the BM? When will it be? Also thanks to whomever wrote more info about this piece...it's amazing.

Erastes and Eromenos?

The current text describes the active and passive partners as erastes and eromenos respectively. What evidence is there for this? Erastes and eromenos described people in an ongoing relationship. The people depicted may have been in an ongoing relationship, or they may have been casual sexual encounters. I think the article should be amended to reflect this. --rossb 09:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understood it, erastes and eromenos were valid labels, whether the encounter was casual or not.

Neddyseagoon 10:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

The British Museum site uses the terminology. Nonetheless, your question raises a good point. The use of the terms was generalized to a certain extent (even used politically of the relationship between a citizen and the state - see article on pederasty in ancient Greece) but was it used in prostitution also (against Timarchos, perhaps?) and can we categorize the couples on the cup? I do not know offhand. Haiduc 10:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

rubinia I wrote a paper on this piece, and everything I saw used the terms erastes and eromenos...this is a Roman object but it shows the couples in a Hellenised setting, so even if they are not in a long-term relationship (which is possible, since I was under the impression that the Greeks didn't always go 'all the way' in pederastic relationships), maybe they are just playing at Greek love, if that makes sense?

Misleading wording in Iconography section of Warren Cup entry

The Iconography section says "The other side depicts the young man making love to the boy who is appears on the opposite side."

Two problems with this, one significant and one minor:

1. "Making love" is misleading because there is no depiction of love or gentleness here. It's just sex, for the pleasure of the man. Some people assume sex is always loving, but that is not always so. "Making love" should not be used as a euphemism for sex, because it implies more than the sex act itself, and there is no basis for inferring those implications to the scene depicted on the Cup.

Without being judgmental in any way, it would be more accurate to say "The other side depicts the young man sodomizing the boy who appears on the opposite side."

That is completely accurate, non-judgmental, and does not imply any love, care, tenderness, or mutuality of pleasure, none of which can be assumed from the depictions on the Cup. (The man and the boy are not looking at each other, there is no basis for assuming it is necessarily consensual, although perhaps it might be, and the wreath on the man's head shows him as a winner, not necessarily as a loving partner. The boy's face, which shows up clearly in another image in the Wikipedia Commons photos, is disinterested and detached, not that of a happy, involved, or enthusiastic participant in the sex act.)

2. There is a minor typo in writing "who is appears on the opposite side". It should be "who appears on the opposite side."

Greg Dyer (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion lacks a basis in the sources available and makes several original assumptions. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow...you say there is no basis in the sources. Try reading them. The Warren Cup is supposed to be a depiction of Roman male-male sex...and Pollini as well as others make it clear it is an unequal relationship between the Roman male and a slave. You are just wrong and the article should make that clear."Making Love" is POV. Especially in regards to a master and slave relationship as is "Supposedly" illustrated on the cup.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Material from Greek love

I'm pasting material here since it is about the Warren Cup. At Greek love, it merely demonstrates a point that is already well made there. Questions of authenticity also make its inclusion anywhere but here highly questionable. McOoee (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

On the "Greek" side, a bearded, mature man is mounted by a young but muscularly developed male, probably meant to be 17 or 18. A child-slave watches the scene furtively through a door ajar. The "Roman" side of the cup shows a puer delicatus, age 12 to 13, held for intercourse in the arms of an older male, clean-shaven and fit. The bearded pederast may be Greek, with a partner who participates more freely and with a look of pleasure. His counterpart, who has a more severe haircut, appears to be Roman, and thus uses a slave boy; the myrtle wreath he wears symbolizes his role as an erotic conqueror. The cup may have been designed as a conversation piece to provoke the kind of dialogue on ideals of love and sex that took place at a Greek symposium, but its antiquity has been challenged.

Question of Authenticity

I updated the page to include Moevs' article from the leading fine-arts journal in Italy. The authenticity of the cup has long been questioned (Power and eroticism in Imperial Rome Caroline Vout p 74, others cited by Pollini in his 1999 article), but Moevs' article is the first to systematically examine the cup from an archaeologist's perspective.Chicagoluke (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Chicagoluke

It is a good topic to add to the article, though I suggest others check the sources or look for improvements and alternatives in sourcing as this is a controversial area. Fæ (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The only English-language source for Moevs' article I could find online is abstract on the Bollettino d'Arte's website. Others wishing to check Moevs' article will probably need to reference an academic library (and possess a reading knowledge of Italian.)Chicagoluke (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The current paragraph summarizes quite well Moevs's arguments against the cup's authenticity. Thus I have made edits to the article that reflect the likelihood that it is a modern piece. After more work has been done by the scholarly community in the next few years I expect that this article will need to be reframed completely, but since now there are still those thinking (or hoping?) the Warren Cup to be authentic such minor changes are sufficient for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.223 (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the issues, it would make sense if it were a forgery for the "pederastic" market in Greek antiquities during the time it surfaced. The analysis of the content, however, might be less affected than you'd think: the cup would still (as Pollini has it) illustrate a contrast between the Greek pederastic model, and the Roman—but from the perspective of the time in which it was made. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at GScholar and after a (brief) search on JSTOR, I can find nobody citing Moevs' article, consequently including a special section based on almost the entire abstract from one source that does not appear to have caused much academic impact seems undue weight. I suggest it is removed unless someone can rewrite it based on several questioning sources with a reasonable summary of the issues. --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll see I've added Mary Beard - also nb this. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, it really does need a re-write. There are a number of different issues with the article that are crying out for improvement with this area of controversy only one. Relating to the theoretical forgery issue; the reasons why sliver cannot be dated, the context of the role of the slave and sexual gratification, different speculations as to the imagery and whether any artist of the time speculated for a forgery date would have been likely to be this competent to ignore the assumptions of their time, the shifting speculation as to why the cup was created and how it might have been used as a (erotic) lavish party-piece as a motivation for a forgery. There are sources for these ideas but it would take some devoted time to tease it out. Hm, maybe this out to be a little group project... --Fæ (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A passing mention in a review is not a great source for this, and really doesn't merit a prominent position in the lede; I don't discount the suspicions (see background for potential market here), but access to the popular press has made Beard a bit in love with the sound of her own voice these days, and I've noticed in her last couple of books a tendency to mistake a conviction in the rightness of her approach for the kind of detailed scholarship that usually characterizes classical studies. Somewhere on Wikipedia years ago, I saw a user wonder how Greek culture survived if paiderasteia were a widespread practice, "because an entire generation would be traumatized." The comment stuck with me, because it shows how nearly impossible it is for us to enter the psychology of cultural practices so alien (and repugnant to most of us). It's also revealing how urgently we try to shape the narrative of the past according to our own values: is it possible that because the Greeks didn't see anything wrong with the practice (though there were criticisms of some aspects), the eromenoi weren't traumatized? I don't know. It's the kind of topic that really tests Wikipedia's limits, because to approach the subject matter neutrally will always be read by some as insufficiently condemnatory and thus approving. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the perspective on Beard, I daresay with a bit more time someone can find a somewhat, er, deeper source and replace her casual comments dashed out for the Guardian. --Fæ (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I was taking into account, but not of course referencing, the hearsay Vickers view linked to above. I haven't done a full search. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph about Moevs' work absolutely should NOT be removed. The fact that JSTOR has nothing is irrelevant -- JSTOR usually does not make journals available for a few years, to give the publishers a chance to sell hard copies. I've never heard of the other database, but assume it's the same thing. So there is little, if any, chance that JSTOR would have something already. (It's quite possible that journals not yet in JSTOR do make reference to it, though.) Moreover, scholarship works slowly: an article that dates to 2008 would not have reached library shelves until 2009 in many cases, as university libraries do not get all journals -- especially European journals! -- that quickly. So while it is possible for there to have been responses by now, it is not surprising that there haven't been. Also, the author of the piece is a scholar with a career of a half-century or so and her article is in one of the foremost journals -- so while argument-by-authority is not probative, this cannot be dismissed simply because after a little time no one has referred to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.106.174 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I was contradictory in my phrasing: I should have stressed more that there may well be references that we don't know about because they're not yet online, but even if no one has responded yet that doesn't mean much because the Moevs article dates to 2008. And a valid response would require an in-person examination of the Warren Cup, which would require a scholar's finding time to travel to the museum, get something written, get it peer-reviewed, and have it appear. More importantly, it makes absolutely no sense to cite Mary Beard in the first paragraph -- instead, allusion should be made to Moevs' article. Moevs is the true expert at Italian pottery/vessels, Beard is a distinguished classicist but not the main authority here. So whoever made that change was ill-advised to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.106.174 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Two cents on this debate (and first for sure I've to appologize for my broken english):

M.T.Marabini Moevs' article has been published at the end of 2008, 3 years ago - and no scholarly reference on her assumptions appeared since than. Research may be slow, but not that slow on an object famous like this one, I take for granted. (And, sorry, the Mary Beard review in the Guardian doesn't count cause she's not reviewing Moevs (only mentioning) but MacGregor ...)

On the other hand, the surveys ordered by the British Museum (main, on corrosion (pdf), general examination (pdf)) show no evidence for doubts concerning the authtenticity. In addition there has been done deep research on the object by distinguished scholars (Clarke, Williams) proceeding on the assumption of the authenticity of the Warren Cup, we should not ignore.

Summarizing, I propose to give a less prominent place to Moevs' essay like I did in the recently written article on de:WP, putting it in a reference (see the first one). At least until anyone will approve her conclusions.

Regards --Rax (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is balanced the way it is. Although I rewrote the intro to lessen the impact of tthe passing remark by Mary Beard in her Guardian review (for reasons discussed above), that was an extremely prominent forum in which to introduce the question of authenticity, and makes it less "fringey". (Didn't mean to diss Beard quite as much as I did; I use her work regularly.) The placement of the paragraph at the end also diminishes its weight, because readers will have already seen the cup discussed as authentic by RS. The forgery argument is interesting and informative in and of itself; the article Greek love features the cup prominently in its Roman section, but the section on the Victorians et al. outlines the cultural climate in which the cup could have been created, in Moevs' theory. I'm not convinced either way. I've been working on the article Homosexuality in ancient Rome, and added a section specifically on the Warren Cup, which had long been used to illustrate the article; I'm certainly not prepared to banish the cup as inauthentic from that article. But I'd actually like to see the Moevs' section expanded a little (or at least rewritten a little more clearly and elegantly). What the article does need, however, is more discussion of the cup's imagery from John Clarke's Looking at Lovemaking (which uses the boy "voyeur" as the cover image) and John Pollini's article. If Mary Beard is prepared to entertain the possibility that the cup is a forgery, then it would be presumptuous of Wikipedia editors to decide we should dismiss Moevs' argument by relegating it to a footnote. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for your comment - and for nobody else commented, I'll take it for consensus. Regards --Rax (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rax, as the one who first raised the issue of authenticity here several weeks back -- and is now returning to see where things stand -- I feel I should address one point. You are correct that Clarke and Williams are both prominent scholars who believe the Warren Cup to be real. HOWEVER, neither is an expert on the technical aspects of producing ancient vases, cups, etc. Moevs, however, is indeed such an expert, as is the colleague who wrote the appendix to her article. So their combined expertise is arguably more relevant than that of people who merely interpret the scenes on the Warren Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.217 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with the word 'merely': it requires a broad, complex, and deep body of knowledge to produce a useful interpretation about the meaning of imagery in its cultural context. Even if the cup turns out to have been crafted in the late 19th or early 20th century, it doesn't mean the interpretations are incorrect: for the forgers to make a convincing work, they had to draw accurately on conventions of expression for the period intended. If the imagery weren't plausible, a forgery wouldn't succeed. It doesn't mean the scholars don't know what they're talking about, or that any fool could arrive at their conclusions. It simply means they were presented with a set of signs that made sense, given what scholars know about male-male sexuality in the Julio-Claudian period. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I used "merely" because the knowledge required to determine a modern fake is different from, and more technically specialized than, the "broad, complex, and deep body of knowledge" possessed by those who interpret such imagery. That's not to say the latter group does not have expertise, but rather that its expertise isn't as significant in matters of authenticity. And moreover, the fact is that numerous top scholars have suspected the Warren Cup's authenticity from the start, but weren't as vocal as those who *wanted* the Warren Cup to be authentic and therefore decided it must be. So whereas you believe the imagery must be plausible because certain art historians and scholars of ancient sexuality accepted the Warren Cup as real and found things to say about it, I see this as an example of confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). And if further evidence emerges that the Warren Cup is a fake, then the willingness of some scholars to accept its authenticity despite the doubts expressed by other scholars will look even more like confirmation bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.22.13 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you miss my point completely. For a forgery of this sort to be plausible, the forgers have to present cultural "signs" that could be read in the context of Julio-Claudian culture in addition to the physical properties testable by science. Good forgers would not create implausible imagery; they would want the imagery to be explicable based on the tradition of scholarship dealing with the art and literature of the Principate. "Plausible" is not a synonym for "authentic." Pollini's interpretation of the cup's imagery as contrasting "Greek" and "Roman" traditions of pederasty is still coherent, no matter when the cup was created. What changes is whether it was an expression of the 1st century AD, or whether it was a modern representation of a sexual code perceived to have existed in the 1st century AD. The scholarly correction that will need to occur is not the interpretation of the cup's imagery based on what was already known about Roman male-male sexuality, but the use of the cup's imagery as evidence of ancient sexual attitudes. If the cup is inauthentic, it obviously can't add to our knowledge of how the ancient Romans regarded male-male sexuality; however, it adds to our knowledge of how ancient Roman sexuality was understood during the period in which it was produced, which is a matter of reception. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple small notes: 1.) Although the publication date of Moevs' article was 2008, it didn't actually appear in print until 2010 (the Bollettino d'Arte is the most prestigious art/historical journal in Italy, but is tied to an Italian government organization... need I say more?) 2.) Being published in Italian (and at the later date as mentioned above), I'm not sure the article has had sufficient time to resonate yet in the art historical community interested in the Warren Cup. It would be vastly premature to judge the article as not having made a significant change in the way the Warren Cup will be seen. 3.) The paragraph as originally written was based on the original entire article, not just the English abstract - that just happens to be the only related text available online.Chicagoluke (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you intend to add any criticism of the journal that printed Moevs' work as suspicious due to government ties, lets not forget this was purchased on the black market in an area that many proven fakes have come from in very similar circumstances. The imagery has never really been the question of authenticity to most professionals it appears...but that it has no "discovery" background. It was simply bought. The fact that it never had any real study until recently has also been suspicious to some. The dating of this item was done by approximating the style of skyphos' found in Pompeii at the House of Menander and I believe sets it at the time of Augustus not Nero.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no, the thing about the Italian government was just a joke as to why a journal with a 2008 publication date wouldn't actually be printed until 2010. Read the rest of what I wrote - I was defending the Moevs article.Chicagoluke (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked back on previous versions but currently the article just states that there is doubt about the authenticity. Presumably there is a counterpoint and some evidence that it is genuine, this needs to be added. Gymnophoria (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Promoting to Good Article

As a first step, I'm taking some time to review the sources (the last time I worked on this was over 3 years ago), and would be interested if anyone has comments for taking this to GA standard? A list of areas to improve would be a useful focus. I have university access to the sources, so can pull the most relevant out of the library or check articles on jstor, along with having a few of the referenced books at home, and can seek advice from historians in this area, if we need pointing in the right direction.

Initial check against the GA Criteria:

1. Well-written

   It probably needs significant re-writing so there is a better lead and a reasonable narrative flow.

2. Verifiable with no original research

   No obvious OR issues. A slight expansion of sources and better use of multiple sources to support the main points would be an improvement. It seems quite well sourced as a starting point, though there may be some articles in the last five years to be added.

3. Broad in its coverage

   The social and political aspects may be worth expanding. The way the BM has exhibited the cup has changed significantly over the last 20 years, this could be expanded in the exhibition history section.

4. Neutral

   Expansion of the provenance question should be treated cautiously and stay in proportion. The overwhelming majority of respected sources support its identification as a Roman artwork, it may be tempting to over-weight papers that contest this.

5. Stable

   The article has a history of many years and is not part of any ongoing dispute.

6. Illustrated

   There are a number of good photographs available. It may be worth tracking down a diagram/redrawing of the images as silverware can be tricky to make out fine details.

--Fæ (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• As part of tidying up sources, the following author articles have been created: Luca Giuliani, Dyfri Williams, John Pollini, John R. Clarke (historian) --Fæ (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources - review and expansion of use

• John Pollini, 1999, The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver - http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051285.

  This 30 page paper gives a great deal of useful context and includes detailed photographs that are a good tip for how the Wikipedia article could be laid out. The article would benefit from making better use of this paper. Pollini himself should have an article as a Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology in the Department of Art History at the University of Southern California.[1] (now created)

  The last few pages of the paper appear to mostly be hypothetical interpretations of potential visual queues, verging on being fanciful. This seems mainly intended to stimulate further discussion, not to reach a conclusion and would probably be best not used by the article as evidence of itself, or carefully qualified. --Fæ (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Dyfri Williams, The Warren Cup, British Museum objects in focus, The British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714122601

  The objects in focus series are a key reference, this needs to be used in the text rather than left in 'Further reading'. I shall get hold of a copy to review Have a copy, under review and citations being added. --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• John R. Clarke, The Warren Cup and the Contexts for Representations of Male-to-Male Lovemaking inAugustan and Early Julio-Claudian Art, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 75, Jun., 1993, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045949

  There are useful comparisons to an Arretine bowl fragment and the erotic artwork at the Suburban Baths, Pompeii that the article would benefit from to provide context of how art of this type was used in the ancient period. The article includes a number of interesting facts about provenance, and replicas, that can be added.

  Clarke and Pollini are in fundamental disagreement about the interpretation of 'side A' of the cup (though 'side B' has an obvious interpretation). Pollini refers to the lower figure as a "bearded pederast" and the upper figure as a "pedicated youth" (even though he later describes the upper figure as "certainly fully grown" on page 29), whilst Clarke highlights that the two figures are the same size and, apart from the close cropped beard, there are no indications that there is a significant age difference between the men. There may need to be several sources in the section interpreting the images, and for these differing interpretations to be separately put forward. It may be that over the last 20 and 15 years since the papers were published that later sources can provide less, er, geared interpretations.

--Fæ (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

At the current time, Clarke, Pollini and Williams appear to be the critical sources to include. Other citations tend to be minor mentions, or referencing the works of these three authors. I have chosen the style of separate Footnotes & References linked by use of {{harv}}; this is less commonly used on Wikipedia but within the standard options of the Manual of Style and emphasises these key citations from the other minor mentions, thinner website pieces, or transient newspaper stories. --Fæ (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The strap

I have added a comparison given in Clarke's 1993 article to Brendel, Otto (1970), The scope and temperament of erotic art in the Greco-Roman world, Fig.19, OCLC 633564109, however I have yet to track down a copy of the image described as a woman holding onto a strap while engaging in a sexual activity. It may well be that no free reusable image is available or that the cup described is not one that has been on public view. I doubt that much more can be added without this becoming original research. --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pueri Delicati

Beert Verstraete's paper Reassessing Roman Pederasty in Relation to Roman Slavery: The Portrayal of Pueri Delicati in the Love-Poetry of Catullus,Tibullus, and Horace[2] provides some interesting context. I am reticent to open up the article in tangential areas, particularly when contentious, though a context for the artwork by using literature of the same period, for both the nature and cultural perception of sexual relationships is heavily relied on by the sources rather than just comparisons to other visual works, and additional sources, such as those quoted by Verstraete would not hurt. This a topic covered briefly in Homosexuality in ancient Rome. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

After further reviewing the sources, it still appears that the article is better off without developing a much longer discussion about pueri delicati or similar. The Warren Cup is not a good source by itself of Roman culture with regard to same-sex acts or longer term relationships between men of difference ages or status. Many sources, such as Williams, describe the artwork as a Roman view of an Hellenic ideal or fantasy, rather than giving a insight into contemporary Roman culture. Though the article could be usefully extended with more parallels with other artwork of the 1st century, providing context for the majority expert view on dating, as well as further interpretation of the symbolism, exploring pederasty or homo-eroticism in Roman period art, is probably best left for more general Wikipedia articles to develop. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Laurel or myrtle

Pollini is firm in his opinion that the crowns are myrtle and rejects interpretation of prior publications. Other sources, such as Clarke, are not so definitive and tend to call these laurel crowns, though this may be a default terminology rather than judging them to actually be made of laurel leaves. Pollini's analysis relies on the myrtle plant having smaller leaves than the laurel and having pairs of leaves while the laurel's leaves alternate. Unfortunately laurel seems to grow in varieties where this may not be true, further there are many ancient depicitions of laurel crowns where the leaves are depicted in pairs. A close examination of the portraits on the cup shows that the leaves appear quite large in proportion to the heads of the figures. We need to take care to avoid original research, however Pollini's interpretation may well be thin but is worth inclusion due to the prevalence of artworks connecting the Roman goddess Venus and myrtle. The text should avoid over representing Pollini's interpretation as historical fact. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Williams also identifies the crowns as being of myrtle. I will revise the paragraph with Williams' viewpoint shortly. --Fæ (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Video

I am negotiating the release of a video to illustrate the article, hopefully within a week of writing here. As this would have most impact at the beginning of the article, it may mean slightly re-arranging and potentially cross-referencing to the video as a source in its own right. --Fæ (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The video has now been transcoded and uploaded to Commons:File:Warren Cup.ogv. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Context

I think you need a bit on elite Roman silverware in general, to give context - Williams can no doubt supply. I wish someone would write Ancient Roman silver. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Williams does include several comparisons to contemporary art objects, he made the comparison to the Hoby skyphoi, up until reading his book I was unaware of it. The Hoby treasure has remarkable similarities in style. I have thought about covering more of the comparisons, however this is probably well beyond GA level writing so is something I was thinking of returning to, possibly in a few months.

I agree, ancient Roman silver is neglected and there is plenty of material to base articles on. I did do a little reading about it in 2010/11 but it's a big topic! --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warren Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article; I'm happy to field this review! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	The MOS for lead sections is not being adhered to here, as this article's lead does not amply summarise the rest of the article. There are various problems with "words to watch" in the text, such as "said to have been found". There are many stand alone sentences, which should be merged or otherwise combined into a paragraph structure.
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).	At present, far too many of the references are to entire books, without specifying the pages in question that are relevent.
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.	Although not necessary fot this GAN, I think that this article would be greatly aesthetically improved if the images were to be moved around a little. As it is, they look rather clogged up toward the early part of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	As it currently stands, I cannot award this article GA status. Nevertheless, it is not far off from achieving that, and has clearly been greatly improved by recent work. I will give the nominator some time to deal with the problems that I have highlighted before I make a decision as to whether it shall be passed or failed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) As User:BlueMoonset has pointed out to me, there has been no response for six weeks, so I think it best to fail this nomination for now. Nevertheless, I hope that the advice for improvement I have provided will be of utility to editors in improving this article and bringing it up to the necessary standard in future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)