Talk:Pioneer Helmet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is in very good shape and seems comprehensive. I just have a few comments/queries:

• dexter and sinister is overlinked, but given they are given separately, I think that is fine.
• Coppergate helmet|York, Iron Age, Roman Britain and Beowulf are overlinked. You can probably get away with the first one due to the piping, but the others aren't necessary.

• Removed one of the Beowulf links. Are you sure Iron Age and Roman Britain need only one link? I sort of see the Iconography and Discovery sections are distinct—one is nuts and bolts, one is analysis—which is why they're linked both times, but if you disagree I'll defer to your judgement.

• MOS:DUPLINK discourages duplicate links within an article unless there is a significant benefit for the reader. I don't see a significant benefit in the last three.

• could you scratch up numerical identifiers for the old sources, plus Chaney, Heaney, Northamptonshire Archaeology, Minerva? - oclc/issn should be available from Worldcat

• Done for all of the new ones except for Northamptonshire Archaeology Reports. It hasn't been officially published (nor does it show up in WorldCat), but is a private client report that I had to email Northamptonshire Archaeology for a copy of. Do the old ones (Bateman/Tacitus 1/Tacitus 2) need numerical identifiers? I could provide OCLCs, but there are already Google Books links to them (they're out of copyright), so it seems unnecessary.

• Depends on where you are planning to take this. If Milhist A-Class review or FAC are in the future for this article (I hope so), then they will be queried again, so probably better to include them for completeness.

• Saraceni isn't being used, Further reading? It also has permanently changed scheme to https and changed subdomain, might be worth updating the url?

• Found a place to use Saraceni (suggesting the chin straps were leather, not just generic textile). I changed the URL to https, is that what you mean?

• I tweaked it.

• The unexplained iron rods are mentioned, but then not properly introduced until the Discovery section. I suggest providing a bit more information in the Description section when they are first mentioned, as they sort of hang there unexplained, and it is not till the later section that we discover anything about them.

• Good point, changed to "A series of unexplained iron rods found near the helmet could theoretically..." to introduce them.

• the images are all licensed appropriately
• the Earwig tool only picks up text from Beowulf.

That's me done, not much to nitpick really. Great job. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quick and helpful review, Peacemaker67. I've addressed all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No prob. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, Peacemaker67. Cool to see it promoted on it's DYK day (is that how you came across it?), too. I've removed one duplink, and changed the other two to make them more precise: one to Iron Age Europe and one to British Iron Age, since that's how they're being used. Other than the OCLCs, is there anything you would suggest before taking this to FAC (or Milhist A-Class review)? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I recommend going through Milhist ACR first, as it ensures that a few eyes get on it and that it is close to FA, but other than that, go for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)