Talk:Insular crozier

Did you know nomination

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) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Lismore Crozier, c. 1100

• ... that of the many Insular croziers (pictured) made between c. 800–1200 AD, fewer than 20 fully intact examples survive? Source: Moss, Rachel. Medieval c. 400—c. 1600: Art and Architecture of Ireland. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. p310. ISBN 978-0-3001-7919-4

• Reviewed: Musca depicta

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 20:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC).

• @Ceoil: New enough and long enough. No QPQ. Citation to Moss in lead section paragraph 3 matches what's provided here: AGF on the offline source. No other textual issues; I'd go over the page again for spelling/grammar errors, though, as I caught a few. You might also want to learn about {{sfn}} given the source mix with so many books. Please ping me when QPQ is supplied. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Will do re sp./grammar, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• QPQ done @Sammi Brie:, also sp/grm done as part of larger expansion etc. txs Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: @Sammi Brie: A couple of questions, are there 12 (hook) or twenty (lead) fully intact examples? Is that after the destruction of the St Mel's Crozier? Should that section mention its destruction at the beginning and continue in the past tense? TSventon (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It was before, so will rephrase to hedge. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: should the hook say there are 20 (or 19) fully intact examples to agree with the article lead rather than 12, as at present? TSventon (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated @TSventon: Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Please answer the hook question from September 5 on fully intact examples. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil:, thank you for resolving the 20 v 12 discrepancy. The hook now says less than 20 and the lead says 20, so perhaps the lead should say 20 as of 2014, I will leave it to you and @Sammi Brie: to decide whether that is important. TSventon (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to fewer than 20 (instead of less than) for grammar purposes, but yes this needs to be reconciled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie:@TSventon: Yeah good points, and the "as of 2014" clarification is now added to the lead. there are two issues here...lots of recent research and new examples being identified (mostly Scottish), and art historians and archeologists differ on what "intact" means, as they are all in different states of disrepair. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: should this be just "20 fully intact examples" instead of "fewer than 20 fully intact examples" in the hook then? The lead and hook still differ. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: - have gone with "fewer that" in the lead, given the ambiguity in definition. Work for you? Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, everything finally agrees. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• ya, it does, being nuanced to cover those that argue for 15 to 18. Thanks for patience!! Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3