Template:Did you know nominations/Hockley Pendant
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hockley Pendant
.jpg)
The Hockley Pendant
- ... that the sixteenth century Hockley Pendant (pictured) was discovered by a four-year-old in 2009? Source: Google Arts and Culture
Created by MauraWen Nominated by SL93 at 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC).
While there are a couple of sources focused on the topic, some of the sources and text in this article seem to be about general concepts rather than the Pendant itself. Some portions, such as the one sourced to the Coventry ring and the one about Saint Helena reach conclusions not found in their sources (which do not discuss the pendant at any rate). I also find the sentence on the value quite similar to the source, and that appears to be incomplete per the Guardian source, which states it sold at £70,000. Are there any other sources that might discuss this pendant somewhere, and reach the claims mentioned regarded the iconography? On a less significant note, it is helpful to add publication dates to news sources. CMD (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I usually try to add some background information on similar historic artefacts. That is why the content on reliquaries appears to be general-- I am trying to add more content to avoid creating Stub articles. The pendant's value in two sources was a bit contradictory. I have a reference that mentions $70,00 paid to the family and the BBC article says the pendant is worth 2.5 million pounds if sold. Since the British Musuem purchased the pendant, I thought it would be more accurate to list the worth of the pendant, rather than it selling for $70k, as it may have sold for more than $70,000 at a later date. The British Museum has the best information about the pendant itself, and it discusses the iconography. MauraWen (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a bad idea on its own, it just makes up quite a bit of this article, and the items I looked at weren't exactly supported as mentioned above. I see the British Museum page does mention the two options for the figure, but it doesn't mention either as more likely. CMD (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will work on helping address the issues after I get off work in a few hours. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about the reliquaries content and can remove that paragraph. Thanks for your help and advice. MauraWen (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis I removed that section and some other things. I also added a bit more to the article. The article is still start class and has 2,491 characters. I fixed the year in the hook to 2009 because BBC says last year in the 2010 article and another source also says 2009. Is there anything else? I can add the publication dates if they are required for an approval. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it needs to be removed entirely if MauraWen wants it (although if they don't want it that's fine), the problem was more it was synthesis given the current sources. I have found that the book version of Britain's Secret Treasures does mention it. This artfund page discusses iconography in the context of the pendant, and so is another option to avoid synth. This book is another one that discusses what the specific iconography of this pendant may mean, and the importance of wearing it. (It also mentions the Coventry ring, which was used here as a source but didn't fully support what it was saying. This paper may also provide that link without synth, but I do not have access.) I had some concerns regarding notability, but I have less having looked for those sources myself. If these could be added, that would better establish notability, and deal with my synth concerns. Publication dates are not required for approval, but they're quite good to have. CMD (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis I added those sources except for the last one since I can't access it. I also added the publication dates to those sources which have them. I added myself as a contributor instead of just the nominator. SL93 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Noted, no objections to that. MauraWen, if you want to restore and adjust the more general background text, I believe the sources I found will allow for that without SYNTH issues. Either way,
I am more assured on notability now, and this article is new enough, long enough, neutral and sourced with no paraphrasing issues found, and the QPQ has been done. The hook seems fine, and the image seems decent at a small size and appropriately licenced. CMD (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis and SL93: I have no problem with the reliquary paragraph being removed. The History section does not need the subtitle now, in my opinion, since the other subtitle and paragraph in that section have been deleted. Please let me know what you think. Happy to have others edit my work to make articles better. What does SYNTH mean? I don't know that term. MauraWen (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Noted, no objections to that. MauraWen, if you want to restore and adjust the more general background text, I believe the sources I found will allow for that without SYNTH issues. Either way,
- Chipmunkdavis I added those sources except for the last one since I can't access it. I also added the publication dates to those sources which have them. I added myself as a contributor instead of just the nominator. SL93 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it needs to be removed entirely if MauraWen wants it (although if they don't want it that's fine), the problem was more it was synthesis given the current sources. I have found that the book version of Britain's Secret Treasures does mention it. This artfund page discusses iconography in the context of the pendant, and so is another option to avoid synth. This book is another one that discusses what the specific iconography of this pendant may mean, and the importance of wearing it. (It also mentions the Coventry ring, which was used here as a source but didn't fully support what it was saying. This paper may also provide that link without synth, but I do not have access.) I had some concerns regarding notability, but I have less having looked for those sources myself. If these could be added, that would better establish notability, and deal with my synth concerns. Publication dates are not required for approval, but they're quite good to have. CMD (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis I removed that section and some other things. I also added a bit more to the article. The article is still start class and has 2,491 characters. I fixed the year in the hook to 2009 because BBC says last year in the 2010 article and another source also says 2009. Is there anything else? I can add the publication dates if they are required for an approval. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about the reliquaries content and can remove that paragraph. Thanks for your help and advice. MauraWen (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will work on helping address the issues after I get off work in a few hours. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a bad idea on its own, it just makes up quite a bit of this article, and the items I looked at weren't exactly supported as mentioned above. I see the British Museum page does mention the two options for the figure, but it doesn't mention either as more likely. CMD (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I usually try to add some background information on similar historic artefacts. That is why the content on reliquaries appears to be general-- I am trying to add more content to avoid creating Stub articles. The pendant's value in two sources was a bit contradictory. I have a reference that mentions $70,00 paid to the family and the BBC article says the pendant is worth 2.5 million pounds if sold. Since the British Musuem purchased the pendant, I thought it would be more accurate to list the worth of the pendant, rather than it selling for $70k, as it may have sold for more than $70,000 at a later date. The British Museum has the best information about the pendant itself, and it discusses the iconography. MauraWen (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
To T:DYK/P3