Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corleck Head

[edit]

Corleck Head (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 15 November 2024, 08:45 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
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

[edit]

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]

As promised -- I hope this lot is useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its use probably continued through the early Christian period into early modern celebrations of the Lughnasadh, a Gaelic pagan harvest festival.: We usually reckon "Early Modern" to be c. 1485 – c. 1688 or so in British history. Do I read rightly that it was used during that time period? Similarly, with "pagan": unless we're saying that a non-Christian community existed at that time, we need to say something more mealy-mouthed like "a harvest festival originally of pre-Christian origin" ("pagan" is something of a dirty word in Late Antique scholarship, since it would have meant nothing to the people whom it described, and lumps together a hugely heterogeneous religious world).
  • Historians assume they were hidden during the Early Middle Ages: this doesn't seem to fit with the dates established by the previous comment.
Addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost a century later, it came to national attention in 1937 : do we need the almost a century later? Likewise, where it is usually on display: is that going to be a surprise to many readers?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck, with three faces.: not sure this is quite right. Tricephalic, strictly, means having three heads, and I don't think there's any indication that this skull would originally have had two siblings. If we simply mean "three-faced", it's tautological, as we say that a bit later.
  • a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck ... The head cuts off just below the chin: seems a bit repetitious (this is all within three lines on my screen).
Trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are similar but not identical in form and their enigmatic, complex expressions: consider cutting but not identical, which is implied (outside mathematics) by similar.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the embossed eyes are wide and round yet closely-set and seem to stare at the viewer: this isn't quite grammatical. Easy fix first: the hyphen in closely-set needs to go (MOS:HYPHEN): we only hyphenate compounds when they're used in apposition with a noun (his close-set eyes), and the Wikipedia MoS doesn't hyphenate those with -ly verbs in any case. We also have a bit of a garden-path sentence here. Suggest either bracketing (yet closely set) or, probably better, taking a breath: yet closely-set, and they seem to stare at the viewer.
  • Archaeologists disagree on whether it: restate the subject in a new paragraph.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hole under its base suggests it may have been intended to be placed on top of a pedestal, likely on a tenon (a joint connecting two pieces of material): the "likely" is a bit misleading here, since the two parts are totally linked: if there was no tenon, the hole would have no relevance to whether it would be on top of a pedestal. Suggest something like The hole in its base suggests that it may have been intended to be connected via a tenon joint to the top of a pedestal. I think this would also remove the need for the long gloss on "tenon", which becomes obvious in context.
  • Most surviving iconic—that is, representational as opposed to abstract—prehistoric Irish sculptures: assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. Struck per Sawyer777 below, though perhaps it's worth a note to clarify that chronological boundary, as it goes so much later than it does in most other areas of European history? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other tricephalic and bicephalic idols include the "Lustymore" figure in Caldragh Cemetery: is it still there?
  • In addition, the late-19th-century tendency to associate objects with a mythical or a late-19th-century Celtic Revival viewpoint: I'm not totally sure what this means, if I'm honest.
    lol. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archaeological evidence indicates that Corleck Hill ... was once known as "the pulse of Ireland": this surely comes from literary evidence rather than archaeological?
    Yes and changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drawn away ... [revealing] a cruciform shaped chamber ... the stones from the mound were used to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as Corleck Ghost House.": this is quite a long quotation. Any reason not to paraphrase it? If nothing else, we could thereby remove the tautology of cruciform shaped (which should be hyphenated anyway).
Yikes; paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a small contemporary spherical stone head from the nearby townlands of Corravilla, and the Corraghy Heads, also in the National Museum of Ireland.: given that the elements in this list are quite lengthy, a serial comma as indicated would be helpful. As we've already mentioned the Corraghy Heads, perhaps better not to gloss/introduce them here.
  • The number 'three' seems: from what I can see on Google Books, the overwhelming form is simply the number three seems.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triple-"mother-goddesses" : I don't think we want the first hyphen here, and probably not the second either. Hyphenating into quote marks is a bit of an odd look.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genii Cuucullati: This is Latin, so should be in a lang template. Can we translate it too?
    Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it not the other way around -- a Latin term that's got a Gaulish one hammered into it? Genii is a pretty distinctively/uniquely Latin word, and the morphology/inflection of Cuucullati (specifically, the -ati, "having-been-verbed" suffix) is definitely Latinate rather than Celtic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hooded Spirits article says "The name CucuIlātus is a derivative of Gaulish cucullos, meaning 'hood' (cf. bardo-cucullus 'bard's hood'), whose etymology remains uncertain. Cucullos is the source of Latin cucullus and Old French cogole (via the Latin feminine form cuculla; cf. modern cagoule). The Old Irish cochaIl ('monk's hood'), Cornish cugol, Breton cougoul, and Welsh kwcwIl are loanwords from Latin."
    I don't want to go too deep into this here, so have simplified the image caption as Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Hooded Spirits. Housesteads Roman Fort, Northumberland, England. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works well. Incidentally, I read that as saying it's a Latin derivative, just like chivalrous is a derivative of the French chevalier, but is an English word rather than a French one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as with the Boa Island figures: we haven't actually introduced these. Are they the same as (or a superset of) the Lustymore figure mentioned further up?
  • From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the Boa Island figures and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography and represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future, or in cosmological terms, the upper-world, the underworld and the middle-world.: this may not be your problem, per se, but there are two claims here, and one is much easier to wear than the other. I can accept "these objects were common" as an inference from "we find loads of these things", but I need a bit more convincing as to how we can tell anything about omniscient gods or a tripartite view of the cosmos.
  • The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: isn't this what we said earlier about a tenon, only now we seem to have promoted it to a certainty from being a conjecture the last time around?
    Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three-headed altar thought to depict the god Lugus, found Reims, France in 1852: in Reims, surely? Comma after France per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Genii Cucullati.: needs an italicising lang template. This caption itself needs a full stop at the end, as it has one in the middle. The Boa Island one, however, needs its full stop removed.
  • The modern consensus, as articulated by Ross: I don't think we can really hold up a 60-year-old source as "the modern consensus". If someone else has endorsed Ross as still representing the communis opinio, fine, but we need to cite them as well.
    Source from 2013 added, but Ross' view is generally accepted. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classical Greek and Roman sources mention that Celtic peoples practised headhunting and used the severed heads of their enemies as war trophies: I mean, yes, but they have all sorts of reasons for doing so -- the same sources mention that the Nile once flowed from west to east and that the Ethiopians value iron above gold. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated here: we can still use this information, but we need to be alert to the sort of evidence we're actually dealing with, and the idea that this might not be a face-value factual observation.
  • that is Celts living in Great Britain and Ireland: comma after is.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medieval Irish legends tell of severed heads coming back to life when they are placed on standing stones or pillars: unless the legends say that all heads do this, I would cut they are to make clear that we mean specific heads.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Roman and Insular accounts: what accounts are these? We haven't talked about Roman accounts yet (I assume you mean Caesar/Tacitus here?), and the only Insular narratives we've mentioned are mythical traditions, which are generally too fluid for the label "accounts".
obviously this isn't my FAC, but re assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. - yes, the prehistoric period in Ireland is typically considered to last until the arrival of Christianity, and therefore literacy, in the 4th-5th centuries. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- very helpful, thank you. I've struck and amended accordingly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, excellent points, have them sized up re-sources but will take about a week to address all. The main problem is that there is no parent article for the group (Celtic stone heads), so the article is doing a lot of heavy lifting re context. Your comments are all on point, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
  • The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.
  • a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?
  • as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"
  • and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?
  • I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jens, done until the last point, which I agree with. Have done some restructuring overall as suggested, but would like to weave the Corleck head into the head cult sect as suggested, as sources mention it as a major (Irish) example of the artefact type. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
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
  • "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 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
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Corleck_Head/archive1&oldid=1257505850"