Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1

Corleck Head

Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

"The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
"Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
"on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
"only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
"only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Very interesting.

Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
"or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
"today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
- - MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has been reworded as "It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937, where it is usually on display". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
"Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
"Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones
- - That's exactly the point of "Insular" - their relationship to Continental "Celts" is the subject of much controversy. Insular art is also available for linking. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

Looking good, after the PR. I may wait a while for changes after other comments above. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]