 | A fact from Rochefoucauld Grail appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editIs this sort of repetition helpful?:
"The manuscript was sold by Sotheby's of London on 7 December 2010.[1]"
"They were auctioned by Sotheby's in London on 7 December 2010,[1]"
I removed the repetition, and Johnbod reverted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterKidd (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This is pure marketing fluff (to put it politely):
"Dr. Timothy Bolton of Sotheby's said of the Rochefoucauld Grail, "It is a monumental format, with 107 miniatures, each a dazzling jewel of early Gothic illumination. The scenes often have a riotous energy... lofty towers poking through the borders... and figures tumbling out on to the blank page as they fall or scramble to escape their enemies."
Does it really have a place in WP?
PeterKidd (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why not, in the absence of any other commentary. It is pretty much the sort of thing curators of public collections say about their objects in general media contexts. Your edits removed, among much else, all referencing for the 2010 sale. When a series of edits are, on the whole, not an improvement, they will be reverted, and may not be picked through to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Among other things you removed links to several good images of the volumes. I re-made some edits when reverting, but missed the repetition, which I have now removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"all appearing complete" -- what does this mean? PeterKidd (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"It is claimed that the Rochefoucauld Grail is one of the finest medieval manuscripts to still be privately owned.": "one of" can mean "one of hundreds" or "one of thousands" or even "one of millions", rendering the statement meaningless. PeterKidd (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"The hides of about two hundred cows would have been used in the manuscript's production". Should we say how many trees were used to make a book, or how many kilos of metal went into making a car? I presume not, because it is a pointless factoid. PeterKidd (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"The four volumes are presumed to have belonged to the Rochefoucauld family until the 18th century". There is no evidence whatsoever to support this presumption, and some evidence against it, so why include it? PeterKidd (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"(Douce Ms. 215)" "MS. Douce 215" is the correct form of Bodleian citation, with "MS." in capitals, before "Douce". (see e.g. here: http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/medieval/mss/douce.htm) PeterKidd (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"four volume" should be "four-volume" PeterKidd (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"MS Additional 10292-4 of c. 1315 and MS Royal 14.E.iii". Corrects references are "Additional MSS 10292-10294" and "Royal MS 14.E.iii. PeterKidd (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"The four volumes were created in Flanders or Artois for the French nobleman Guy VII, Baron de Rochefoucauld". The Sotheby's catalogue admits that the original owner is unknown; the only evidence for Rochefoucauld ownership at ANY date is the "baronial arms and standard of Rouchfoucauld inserted later (perhaps in fifteenth or sixteenth century)".
"between 1315 and 1323". There is no evidence for this date, except that of two other manuscripts possibly related in style, one bears the date "1316" and the other seems to pre-date 1324. PeterKidd (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have done most of this - please feel free to tidy & do other points. I note your edits left the "original owner" bit untouched, but there we go. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
My original edits were based on what was *obviously* wrong; I had to consult the Sotheby's catalogue to see that the original owner and dating bits were wrong too. I'm not inclined to make other edits, as so often my contributions just get reverted by someone who thinks they knows better! PeterKidd (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ok. What I know better is WP plicy and the sort of content & writing appropriate to a (very) general encyclopedia with the widest possible audience. I'm happy to defer to your knowlege of medieval manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)