Talk:Vindolanda tablets/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Peacock.Lane 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• No page numbers for Bowman quotes. Please check cites/refs for inconsistencies. – Peacock.Lane 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  I have asked for loans of the relevant books, so I should be able to verify page numbers in a day or two. Fæ (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Let me know when things get straightened out. Please do check for copy/paste when you get that text as well. – Peacock.Lane 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Y All the citations now have page numbers. Fæ (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that referring to Carlisle in the lede is appropriate. In fact, at times the lede seems to veer off into talking about British tablets in general rather than the Virolanda ones. This is quite natural, but may not be the best approach. Is there a parent article for this sort of tablet? If not, I suppose these bits of info can be moved into body text – but I think the majority of the info in the lede should be specific to the Virolanda texts. Perhaps some key facts are missing...? No mention of the correspondence & female Latin handwriting, forex. Other historical significance? etc. – Peacock.Lane 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Y Appears to have been suitably re-written (by others) since the comment was raised. Carlisle is referred to later in the text but the prose is relatively modest and add reasonable context. Fæ (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The bit about the "restitutionist premise" (see Art repatriation): is it really relevant here? I mean, we are going from one museum in Britain to another, right? – Peacock.Lane 02:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Y Agreed, after checking the sources there is no mention of Vindolanda and the international issues involved do not appear to fit the situation here. I have removed the text but left the information about the planned on-site exhibition of tablets. Fæ (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I accept Fæ's amendment removing reference to restitutionalism. While I also accept that my mention of the Lindisfarne Gospels was too off-topic, it may be that when tablets return to the site, something appears in the press about the north east's "claim" to its treasures, so I think that regional sensitivities might be looked at again in the future. Alan (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback. As with any potentially controversial statement, we would need to ensure we stick to the sources and I would have no problem with such an addition as the sources become available. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "with which we are familiar" Who are "we"? Also the grammar is a bit overly formal... In fact, I'm afraid I must add that the passages from Bowman smell suspiciously like copy/paste. Is that the case?
  • Y Transcription section re-written to avoid any issue with cut & paste and now includes Birley's book as an additional source. Fæ (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• the licensing on the images seems OK (to the best of my ability to determine). – Peacock.Lane 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Have done some copy editing, including a complete reorganization/rewrite of the lede. More tomorrow. – Peacock.Lane 09:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)