Template:Did you know nominations/George Speake

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HaEr48 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

George Speake

(

)

Horse head terminal from the Staffordshire helmet

... that George Speake is currently reconstructing the more than 1,000 pieces (one pictured) of the Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire helmet? Source: ICON 2016: "The last great discovery of the Hoard will be the final form of the helmet, currently worked on by George Speake and Chris Fern." Butterworth et al.: "The Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire Hoard contains, alongside the well-publicised gold and silver objects, a large collection of over 1000 fragments of die-impressed silver sheet.1 These gilded metal sheets, when pieced together with other structural fragments of the hoard, provide us with a large portion of what is considered to be a highly-decorated, high-status helmet."

Reviewed: Arlington's Great Meadows

5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 03:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC).

Meh, doesn't seem notable enough for a DYK. Maybe need to add something about who this person is.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, he's an honorary fellow at Oxford who wrote an important book on Anglo-Saxon art and who is currently working on the finds from the Staffordshire Hoard. Is that what you're looking for? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not enough. The DYK would be full of "some person associated with some college who wrote some book". Besides, scholars have to reconstruct artifacts all the time. This is not the first scholar to do a thousand-piece "puzzle" and wont be that last. Not very interesting either.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, if you would like to conduct the full review, consistent with the DYK criteria, in addition to the drive-by commentary please feel free, but otherwise I'm marking this as needing one. We all find different things interesting; planespotting doesn't interest me, for instance, but that would be a poor reason to hold up a DYK on the subject. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Full review needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New enough. Long enough for a new page (1991 characters), but is this supposed to be a 5x expansion? If so, it falls well short of the characters needed. As the article stands, there are no copyvios detected. Hook is short enough and verified with inline citations. Sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. To pass as an expansion, though, it would need additional content. SojoQ (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- SojoQ, Pagesize.js shows that the article contained 378 bytes of text prior to expansion, and now has 1995. That's just above 5x. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  - Thanks Paul 012. SojoQ, my hand count says much the same: 376 pre-expansion (link), 1,991 now, for a 5.3x expansion. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the clarification. My error. From what I see, this page is good to go. SojoQ (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)