Talk:Hellvi helmet eyebrow/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

It's good to see a detailed article on this small, but historically significant, item. I have the following comments:

• "They are made of iron; the smaller of the fragments terminates in an animal head, made of bronze." - I think this would work better as two sentences, as the topics are different.

• I think there's some logic in using the semicolon, since both clauses deal with the material (iron, bronze) of the fragments. The second clause thus partly serves to qualify the first, since not all of the fragments are indeed made of iron.

• "the eyebrow was reconserved" - I'm not sure what this means. Was it restored in some way, or was it reviewed and its collection records improved?

• My understanding is that it was conserved (perhaps cleaned) again, although Arwidsson doesn't say when the first time was. Reworded to "further conserved", with the link for clarity.

• The sentence beginning with 'The Broe helmet—also from Gotland' is rather long.

• Split into two.

• "from the island" - it's not clear what island is being referred to here. Should this be "from the island of Lokrume"?

• Clarified ("from Gotland"). Lokrume isn't an island itself, but is part of the island of Gotland.

• Do we know why decorated helmet eyebrows have repeatedly been discovered without the rest of their helmet? Presumably they were detached at some point to be used for other purpose?

• Added two sentences at the end of "Typology" that discuss this.

• Do we know if this item has ever been placed on display at the Swedish History Museum or elsewhere?

• That's a good question. It's possible it's been placed on display, or included as part of an exhibition, although I haven't seen any suggestion that it has.

• Fair enough. Some museums identify this for items in their collection, but when they don't it's not possible to check this, especially for relatively obscure items like this. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Bild 330267" is listed in the bibliography, but doesn't seem to have been used as a source.

• It's reference #2, although I had the wrong link; it's now fixed.

• As the key sources are offline and/or in Swedish, I've AGF that they support the cited text and there aren't copyright violations. They are all clearly reliable sources, and the text doesn't read like a copyright violation (I note that the same conclusions were reached in the DYK nomination). The only spot check I was able to do (via Google Translate) is for reference 20, which seemed fine.

• Thanks very much for the review, Nick-D. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to pass the GA nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   AGF here given the key sources are offline and/or in Swedish. A single spot check, conducted via Google Translate, was OK. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: