Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shorwell helmet/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2018 [1].

Shorwell helmet

Featured article candidates/Shorwell helmet/archive1

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxon Shorwell helmet was built for fighting. It is strong, exhibits hardly any decoration, and is so plain that it was at first thought to be a broken pot and was purchased for only £3,800. Yet it is one of only six helmets known to exist from Anglo-Saxon England, a scarcity that—along with other rare objects found with the helmet, such as a pattern-welded sword and hanging bowl—suggests its owner was a high-status warrior. Found on the Isle of Wight in 2004, today it is in the collection of the British Museum.

The article on the helmet is short and complete. It covers all the relevant literature as it chronicles the helmet from its discovery, through its typology, to its significance. Recently returned from good article candidacy with a green circle and subsequently refined, it is ready for a gold star. Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

"The recovery of only six Anglo-Saxon helmets among thousands of excavated graves suggests that their owners had some rarefied status": That's my rewording. I think you can say that the helmet conferred status, or that whoever wore the helmet probably had status. But we can't say the wearer definitely had status; for all we know, the helmet was stolen from someone.
I removed the link to the French page for Trivières. It's a good idea to have a stub created on the English Wikipedia, but not required for FAC (as long as the number of red links isn't excessive).
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your careful reading and edits, Dank. I'll turn Trivières into a stub shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

What makes "Thegns of Mercia" a high quality reliable source?

Good catch. It was a bare URL when I started working on the article, and then I changed it into proper format but never removed it until you pointed it out.

On a point of presentation, I think it would make more sense to have "References" (citations) and "Bibliography" (sources) under a single level-2 heading, rather than as separate level-2 headings, but this may be just a personal preference.

I'd rather keep it as is, to maintain consistency with other related articles. Also, that change would make "associated objects" a level-3 heading, which presentation-wise would be a little clunky.

Subject to the above, sources and citations are in good order, and appear to be of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton, responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

Seems pretty thorough, but I have some comments:

The "typology" section seems too low down. Shorn of some repetition, it could go in or after the "Description" section (which could be renamed), or even in the lead.

Reordered. What's the repetition you're seeing?

If supported by the sources, one might mention the possibility that any cuir bouilli or leather areas were decorated by stamping or moulding, which might have been very cheap to do. "Very few decorative elements adorned the Shorwell helmet" might be qualified, as we can't be sure this was originally the case - far from it, some might say.

I couldn't find much specific to helmets, but added some information relevant to scabbards, and qualified the points about decoration. The literature on the Frankish Trivières helmet that I looked at only mentioned the possible leather covering in passing, and there's not much literature to begin with, probably because with no Anglo-Saxon leather helmets having yet been found, nobody has written about how they could have been decorated. Evidence of contemporary scabbards does show decoration similar to that you describe, and I added a line mentioning it. We might not wish to stress the point, however; I think the takeaway here is that this helmet was probably made for someone who would need it in battle, unlike examples such as the Benty Grange helmet or the Sutton Hoo helmet, which, while they could have been worn (particularly the latter), may have been intended to evoke status rather than deflect swords.

Again, subject to sources, it seems that the often-repeated rarity of AS helmets is somewhat undercut by the difficulty excavators had in recognising those that did turn up before very modern methods arrived.

Added a slight qualification, although this possibility isn't much mentioned; ironically, the source that Brianboulton (rightfully) questioned is one of the only that makes this point ("It makes one wonder, though, how many more historically important fragmentary iron Anglo-Saxon military artefacts have been misinterpreted by archaeologists!"). Including fragments (some not necessarily from helmets) there are the remains of only 16 A-S and Viking helmets, however, against more than 142 A-S and Viking swords in the British Museum alone. The helmet number may be under-reported, but it's probably not under-reported by more than 90%.

I've fiddled with the garnet mount. Presumably the BM have a database page on this - a link would be good.

Added it (link). You'd think that they'd have a picture of a gold and garnet item, especially since we can look at some rusted iron, but sadly no.

Lead "... was discovered near a copy of a solidus featuring Anastasius I ...." - a bit too compressed. The average reader won't know that a solidus is a Roman gold coin, Anastasius I was a Byzantine emperor, and the coin was probably made in modern France (or close). Not all this is even in the account lower down. Also the coin was, per the BM, found by metal-detector, apparently some years after the 2004 find of the helmet, while the currect wording rather suggests they were found at the same point.

All good points. I'm a little nervous of making too great a deal of the coin—it doesn't necessarily help too much with date since as a copy, it could postdate Anastasius I—although never removed that text from the lead, which was added in this edit. Looking now at the treasure report for the coin (page 50 of the pdf), its suggested date, c. 500–580, is even less precise than for the helmet. The greater point is probably, as you suggest, that the coin is a likely continental import, in a grave with a continental-style helmet, bolstering the continental connection. I'm going to think about how to approach this, perhaps by addressing it in your suggested section on the contemporary politics.

Took the coin out of the lead, and added more information on it in to the body.

Given the very early date, you might give a bit of "political" context re the Isle of Wight at this period.

Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod, those are all useful suggestions and give good things to think about. Some responses are above, although there are a few that I need to do a bit more research on. Just got the source for the Trivières helmet, so hopefully can address the points about leather decoration soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I think I've worked through most of the issues, and have added three responses above (leather, scarcity, coin). Still need to research the Isle of Wight, but wanted to both make some progress and give you a chance to respond to any of the points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, the new Shorwell helmet#Context section is now done. Sorry it took longer than anticipated to work through your comments, but hopefully this is what you had in mind. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok, thanks, all sorted. I'm distrustful of a utilitarian vs display/parade helmet distinction though, as any helmet would have been expensive, and we know the AS, like the Iron Age Celts before them, liked to go into battle fully blinged-up. To my mind the AS mentality would have been that an expensive elite object like a helmet needed decoration, to impress the other side that they were dealing with an important person = a very good warrior. I doubt any AS person had two helmets, one for show and one for use, so they probably always had to fulfill both roles. But of course the evidence on all this is lacking. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eric Corbett

I had the opportunity to take a good look at this article at its recent GA review, so I have no reservations about supporting its promotion. Eric Corbett 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in again, Eric Corbett, and for for your earlier comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Great topic, and I really enjoyed reading about your other helmets.

I am OK with the single non-free lead image (especially given ~~it's~~ its "almost free" license), given the fact that it's not on display, but I'm a little nervous about the use of the diagram. What's to stop someone else creating their own diagram based on published descriptions? If nothing, I'm not sure it's irreplaceable.

You have a point, and Ideally I'd like to have a non-free diagram there, if for no other reason than to supersize it. That said, I suspect a new, free image would have to rely on the copyrighted one for some details, such as the slope of nose-to-nap and lateral bands, and the size of the infill plates. Perhaps it makes sense for someone to weigh in during the image review, also; one option would be to ask at the Illustration Workshop whether someone could create a replacement.

Two (what look like) quotes without citations in the lead make me a little twitchy.

Cited "fragmentary iron vessel". The other, "crested helmets", is really just a term of art in want of a blue link to make the term clearly delineated, at which point the quotation marks could be dispensed with.

"sub-triangular infill plate" A bit jargon-y

Eliminated the hyphen, since—to my surprise—it turns out "subtriangular" is actually a word with general meaning (OED: "Approaching the form of a triangle; somewhat triangular"). "infill plate" could perhaps be described differently, but, once one conceptualizes what an infill plate is (which, incidentally, is a good reason for a good diagram), it makes it a quick and easy term. ("subtriangular infill plate" is also used in Pioneer helmet and Coppergate helmet.)

"but they may also have been intended to serve as "stop-ribs" preventing edged" Comma after the quote, perhaps?

Done.

"The exact nature of the skin product, let alone purpose" Shouldn't that be its purpose?

Done. I think "of the skin product" is implied in a grammatically correct sense (e.g., if the clause followed directly after "nature," it would mean the same thing), but "its purpose" works well.

I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the discovery site or other finds from the same place? They'd be great for the discovery section.

Just emailed one of the authors of the main article about the helmet. Will update accordingly, or reach out to others if I don't hear back.

"Burgh helmet" Worth linking?

Changed to "helmet from Burgh Castle"; Burgh Castle helmet is on the list of things to create, and then go through and link.

"a bipartite cap rather than four infill plates" A bit jargony, again

Reworded to "Their construction includes a continuous lateral band in addition to the continuous nose-to-nape band, however, and a two-piece construction underneath rather than an infill plate for each of the four gaps, potentially an indication of regional variation."

You should probably include a location for the Ager source and "Valuations" (shouldn't that go before the authored pieces in the bibliography? I forget...). I wouldn't bother with journal publishers.

Done. Guessing a bit with location (London, where the headquarters of the department is), since it isn't explicitly in the report as far as I can tell. Journal publishers is personal preference, since it occasionally provides useful information (e.g., James 1986). Re order, if there isn't an author I order as if the title were the author, since that's how it ultimately shows up in the list; no idea if there's a general convention, however.

"Make all sure: The conservation and restoration of arms and armour" Caps? If I was being picky, I'd say you're inconsistent on whether you use Title Case or sentence case for chapter/article titles in the bibliography.

You're not wrong; there's consistency in that the convention is to follow the capitalization used in each book/article (e.g., see the cover of Make all sure; the title page is the same), but "consistently follows others' inconsistency" isn't a great argument. Happy to go through and just capitalize the lot of them if you think it makes sense.

I would aim for consistency; it's something that sometimes comes up in source reviews. Hardly something to lose sleep over, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really enjoyed this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recognition, and useful feedback on another article, J Milburn. Responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I do think this is a very good article, but I am going to hold off supporting for now as I muse over the image issue a little. I feel a bit silly given that the image is almost free... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J Milburn. Capitalized the titles as suggested. If push comes to shove we can just delete the image; I'll also send an email to someone who produces replicas of the helmet to see if they might license a photo, which would also make the construction a bit more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I do think it's worth a punt with the images; some high-quality freely licensed images can make all the difference for an article of this sort! My fingers are crossed for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, totally understand if you're waiting for the resolution of the comments below to offer your support, but just letting you know that the images are now all in order with verified licenses. (With thanks to Mz7, who processed the OTRS for the photo of the replica.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I may come back to review the new developments made in discussion with MBO, but, for now, I'm happy to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

I'm enjoying seeing these articles on helmets in the collection of the British Museum. I have the following fairly minor comments and suggestions:

"The grave was discovered by members of a metal detecting club in 2004, and excavated by archaeologists that November" - Given that the month it was dug up is noted, I'd suggest also adding the month it was found

Added May 2004.

"suggest that helmets were not solely for the enjoyment of the absolute élite" - "enjoyment" seems an unusual way to describe what's noted to have been a utilitarian fighting helmet. I'd suggest replacing this with "use" or "protection"

Changed to use.

"Nonetheless, only six helmets have been found" - previously noted in the "Typology" section

Reworded.

I find this wording a bit confusing (eg, what's being reflected on?). The first half of the sentence repeats material covered earlier in this para and it's all a bit over complex. Could it changed to something direct like "The fact that only a very small number of helmets have been recovered from the thousands of Anglo-Saxon graves excavated in the UK indicates that they were never deposited in large numbers". Splitting it into two sentences might also work. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, fair point. Reworded again; it's simpler now, and I think transitions better from the preceding sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good to me Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the helmet has ever been placed on display? Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, Nick-D. I've adopted them all, as noted above. I don't know for certain whether it has ever been placed on display, but nothing I have reads suggests that is has. It's not even fully clear when the helmet was reconstructed—it was published in 2012, but theoretically it could have been put together anytime between 2006 and then. The BM probably takes this to be a fairly minor item that is significant for research, but not for display (after all, they already have the Sutton Hoo helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: given poor state of this item in the BM photos, it's unlikely that it would ever be put on display, except as part of some kind of (very) specialist exhibition. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now all been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, appreciate the comments and support. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

Unless I've missed something we're waiting on resolution of Johnbod's comments, plus an image review -- you can post a request for the latter at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, Ian Rose. Still working on one of the points Johnbod raised (just responded to the others), and am waiting on OTRS for a possible replacement image (File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg) for the one J Milburn pointed out, at which point I'll request an image review. (By the way Josh, also added a licensed image of the coin.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I would fully support the article if the non-free diagram was replaced by a free photograph of the replica. You can tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} if you have sent email permission to OTRS. (If you don't yet have permission, it shouldn't be uploaded!) I love the coin image. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I have permissible from the copyright holder via email to upload it; I'm just waiting for him to fill out the online OTRS form. I'll follow up on Monday if there hasn't been any movement by then. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, is there any way to expedite the OTRS review of File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg? The copyright holder sent an email 11 days ago, but with the current backlog, it would take more than a month for it to be reviewed. Tried asking on the Commons noticeboard a few days ago, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help with that, but I think it would be fair to promote this regardless of whether the image is included or not, provided those images that are in the article are clear. Suggest it'd be better to concentrate on tying up the responses to Johnbod's comments and let the OTRS thing take its course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard that might be useful to get some attention. I'd make the switch in the article now and allow the permission to snail ~~it's~~ its way through in time. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion J Milburn, posted on the WP noticeboard and put the new image in. Hope to have the rest finished in a day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting now. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I believe all comments are now addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

In the lede:

Definitely worth inserting the word "England" into the lede! Globally, most people will have no idea where the Isle of Wight is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Let's Wikilink "Anglo-Saxon" in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Would CE not be more appropriate than AD? Call it 'political correctness' if you like, but it seems to be the drift of things these days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the contemporaneous Northern "crested helmets"." - Worth defining "Northern" more clearly here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"part of the grave goods" - "one of the grave goods" might work better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I really would not bother with citations in the lede if the information is already properly cited in the main body of the article. Having a random citation in the lede just looks a bit messy, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to a suggestion made above by J Milburn re: citing of quotations. I don't mind much either way—could just fully cite the lead if that would be better.

I think that the first sentence of the second paragraph might be better placed in the top paragraph. It deals with the original context of the artefact, whereas the other sentences in this paragraph deal only with its retrieval and study. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, good point.

In later sections:

I wonder if "Description", "Typology", and "Function" might all work well as sub-sections of a single section. They are thematically linked in a way that "Discovery" and "Context" are not. I would also suggest that the material in the "Typology" section might be better located before that in the Description section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
"Isle of Wight Metal Detecting Club" - perhaps this should link to metal detectoring?

Added the link to the lead. I could also link "Isle of Wight [[Metal detector#Uses|Metal Detecting Club", but didn't for the time being as the descriptive link in the middle of a proper name seems a little odd.

Context:

I certainly think that this is located in the wrong place, plonked as it is right at the end of the article. My suggestion would be this: create two sections, one looking at the "Context and burial" in which can be discussed both the Isle of Wight in the Anglo-Saxon period and the grave itself, and then a second section looking at the discovery, excavation and conservation. This would involve a rearrangement from what we have at present but I think it would really improve the flow of the article quite markedly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence—"Two works, supplemented by the finds of archaeologists,[47] are responsible for illuminating the 600 years before the Norman conquest at all: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collection of annals recording the history of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Ecclesiastical History of the English People, written by the English monk Bede.["—feels pretty irrelevant. I'd scrap it, to be honest. It's not talking about the Isle of Wight or about Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that could go. Btw, does the article link to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, the main article on this period? Can't see that it does. A clear link to this would be good. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this sentence to make clear that the two works are responsible for the genesis stories of the Isle of Wight. The following paragraph is largely a distillation of critical looks at the Chronicle and Bede's Ecclesiastical History, which is where those perhaps fanciful stories of Cerdic, Hengist and Horsa come from. Johnbod, added a link to the article. Speaking of which, do you have any feelings for the links in the "See also" section? Those have been there since 2013, and I'm tempted to remove the entire section.

AS warfare could be linked to "high-status Anglo-Saxon warrior" in the lead maybe. The others can go I'd say. Agree with keeping AD dates - if it's good enough for the BM.... Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your careful reading and suggestions, Midnightblueowl. I've incorporated most of your suggestions as discussed above. With regards to AD/CE, you're probably right, but as most of the similar articles (e.g., Guilden Morden boar, Pioneer helmet, and Sutton Hoo helmet) currently use AD, I'm going to think on this for a moment and then probably make the switch all at once. Regarding structure, I've changed "Typology" and "Function" to subsections of "Description"; they deal with the analysis of the helmet, whereas "Description" tackles its most basic factual nature, and so I think should go first. I've also put "Context" as a subsection of "Discovery" (as they essentially describe "Where it was found" and "History of where it was found"). The two main goals with structure are to keep it simple and to maintain consistency with the other A-S helmet articles, and hopefully this does both while addressing your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

I'm worried about the over-reliance on Hodgkin in the "Context" section. The understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period has come a long way since the 1950s. I'm wondering if you could use a more modern source that deals explicitly with the early medieval Isle of Wight. His reliance on the narrative provided in Bede is a bit concerning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if it is worth including a few sentences about warrior graves in the period. Sam Lucy's book on the subject of Anglo-Saxon burial would have some useful bits, and Hienrich Harke has written some relevant chapters and articles over the years. I think that things like that will just help to provide a more rounded and up-to-date context, as I have tried to do in prehistory-themed articles like Coldrum Long Barrow and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas. It is time consuming, granted, but I think it greatly improves the end result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, I'll take a look at Lucy and Härke. I had difficulty finding a work specifically on the Isle of Wight when researching the section that uses Hodgkin, probably due to the scant record. Is there anything in that section that strikes you as incorrect, or is the problem more that Hodgkin is writing in 1952? While reading Hodgin I thought he was fairly critical of Bede; only the second and third sentences of the second "Context" paragraph include material derived from Bede, but there the specifics of Bede's assertions are taken lightly. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique As far as I understand the state of current scholarship, Bede's narrative about the Anglo-Saxon migration (Hengest and Horsa et al) is now usually understood as a reflection of 7th/8th century myths rather than as an accurate description of what was actually going on in the 5th century. So it's that aspect of Hodgkin that concerns me; his text needs to be used judiciously. I'll also take a look through Lucy tonight (if I can) and see if there is anything that I can come up with that is of use here. (Sorry I'm giving you all this extra work at FAC, but I hope that it will help - and you have done a really fantastic job thus far!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, Midnightblueowl. Which Lucy book are you thinking of? There are several in different non-circulating libraries around here, so I want to prioritize my time accordingly (though can probably find some of Härke's works online). And thanks for approaching this thoroughly! This is an area of weakness for me, so having someone knowledgeable take a critical look is appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her book on The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death is probably the textbook on the subject of early Anglo-Saxon burial customs. If you're interested in the period (which I'm guessing you are from your editing habits!) then I'm definitely recommend giving it a read. I have a tatty old ex-library copy with me at the moment; I'll use it to add some sentences into the article; feel free to reword my contributions as you see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added is great, Midnightblueowl, thanks for taking the time to do so. The only changes I've made are to order; I placed the paragraph about the other grave goods from Shorwell back in discovery, to keep the account of the excavation complete, and to avoid splitting sections between fact and analysis. Two other ideas would be to put the "Context" section second (ahead of "Discovery"), or to remove the "Context" header and make "Grave goods" and "The Isle of Wight" subsections of "Discovery."

With regards to Hengist and Horsa, I've qualified the language to "according to a legend that is perhaps grounded in rudimentary fact". Hodgkin's point seems to be that while the story of Hengist and Horsa is dubious, it may reflect an actual geopolitical shift from British rule to Kent-centric Germanic rule. (Hodgkin dispenses entirely with the more problematic accounts of Hengist and Horsa, such as that put forward by Nennius.) If you think that too much weight is still being given to fairy tales, one option would be to explicate the language further; another would be to just dispense with the tale entirely and replace it with a sentence suggesting said geopolitical shift. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of edits to this article, so it would probably be inappropriate for me to explicitly offer my "support" for it becoming a Featured Article, although I do believe that it meets the criteria and hope that it is recognised as such. Good work, Usernameunique. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Shorwell helmet.png: Use and rationale seem fine for me. Same for the license, although I would consider using {{photo of art|{{Non-free with NC}}|© Trustees of the British Museum|{{PD-old}}}} instead for the license.
File:Shorwell helmet replica.jpg: Use seems OK to me, license is not confirmed yet.
File:Early Medieval Coin, Gold Gallic contemporary copy of a Solidus of Anastasius (491-518), possibly of the Pseudo-Merovingian coinage, c. 500-580 (FindID 179358).jpg: OK use, license not verifiable.

OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I tried adding the license you suggested for the first image, but it generates the notice that "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years", which seems incorrect. Re: the third image, the CC-BY license can be found here. Re: the second, is there any way to speed up the processing? I've asked on the Commons noticeboard and on the Wikipedia noticeboard, but no luck yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That license text issue is simply an artifact, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I could be wrong, but I read it as saying that the photograph itself is in the public domain, not the underlying work. The license also generates a tag saying "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright" (emphasis added), which seems to be saying, incorrectly, that the 1,500 year old helmet design is the copyrighted entity here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. In that case you'll need to add something like {{Non-free with NC}} on its own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, done. Is there anything else needed with regards to images? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some confirmation on the license of #3 would be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the CC-BY license is found here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

Just a couple of points re. citation formatting that won't hold up promotion:

Under Function you have this series of citations: "[28][16][17]" -- did you intend them to be out of chronological order?

Changed. They were ordered in terms of relevance—28 speaks best to that sentence—but it doesn't matter much, and so many people change them into numerical order anyway that I can't really attempt to keep up.

Under Restoration you have several sentences in a row cited identically, in which case you could simply have one instance of the citation at the end of all the sentences it supports if you choose.

Out of personal preference I like to cite every sentence. Makes it crystal clear where the information came from, and avoids uncertainty if someone ends up adding to the middle of an uncited section.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose. Responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.