Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lokrume helmet fragment/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2024 [1].

Lokrume helmet fragment

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lokrume helmet fragment is not, perhaps, what one would think of as a Viking helmet; note the absence of horns. But it is one of only five exemplars, and the first to have been identified as such. Like many artifacts, its significance outweighs its size.

This article was created in 2018, and, thanks to the input of Gog the Mild, brought to good-article status a year later. It has been refined and revised since, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_(GFB1683)_1.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
  • File:Lokrume_helmet_fragment_-_1907.png: source link is dead.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. One question above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

It's hard to get away from the obvious that this is a very short article. From reading the GA nomination, it's clear that to even pull out this much is a significant achievement and represents a lot of good work by the nominator. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved
  • A question: given the very international nature of the Viking Age and of "Scandinavian" peoples during this period, I'm curious about the line "only two of which were found in Scandinavia". Is there an argument that this might be a red herring, since the peoples in the vaguely "Viking" cultural sphere definitely weren't limited to Scandinavia (I'm thinking especially of the example from Yarm, which is well within the Dane-est of the Danelaw)edit: I'm not sure I'm quite right as to whether it was in the Danelaw, but think the point stands: "Vikings" had been living in that general area for generations by the C10th).
    • A number of the sources treat the Scandinavian ones as worthy of separate mention; Hjardar & Vike 2016, for example, writing a book titled Vikings at War, mention only the Scandinavian ones from the period. (Granted, they may not have known about the Yarm helmet then, but they very likely knew about the Kyiv fragment.) This also makes some conceptual sense. A "Viking Age helmet" found in Scandinavia is more likely to also be a "Viking helmet" in the sense that it was a helmet used by actual Vikings (as, it would appear, the Gjermundbu helmet is); a "Viking Age helmet" found in Ukraine or England may also be a "Viking helmet", but there's a higher probability that it was used by non-Vikings. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Tjele fragment was discovered in 1850, but mistaken for a saddle mounting until 1984: do we only have this at second hand, or do we have any idea of who corrected the record, and how?
    Ah: I had misunderstood, and thought that our fragment had also been mistaken for a saddle mounting -- on reading more carefully, I don't think that's true, and so the current presentation is good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short description confidently calls the helmet tenth-century, whereas the article only says that its decoration dates to around the tenth century. Suggest cutting the date from the short desc, which is already not that short.
  • The Lokrume helmet fragment is the remnant of the eyebrow piece, and part of the nose guard, from a helmet: suggest cutting the first helmet, so that from a helmet sounds less redundant.
  • the others are the Gjermundbu helmet from Norway, the Yarm helmet from England, the Tjele helmet fragment from Denmark, and a fragment from Kyiv.: all but the last are named with countries; is the logic that all of those countries (more or less) existed when the helmets were worn, but Ukraine didn't?
  • The fragment's style of interlaced pattern dates to around the tenth century AD: This is pretty pedantic, but I think we could frame this a little more precisely. As presented, it sound as if the decoration "is" C10th, so the helmet must be too. However, it's a little less clear-cut than that: it sounds like we've got basically no decent evidence for the fragment's date, but it's decorated in a style that was used in the C10th, so the helmet itself is generally dated to the same period (by way of comparison, I've got papers on my desk written in Latin, which dates to the Roman period, but they were written last week). Perhaps something like "the helmet is considered to date to the 10th century BC, on the basis of its style of interlaced decoration: similar patterns appear on tenth-century swords..."
  • Related to the above, I'd amend contemporaneous to tenth-century, since we're using this to make an argument for the helmet's tenth-century date; saying that they're contemporaneous with it assumes the conclusion before we've proven it.
  • Do we know that the helmet is Swedish, or simply that it was found in Sweden? Presumably it could have been a trade object, trophy or something similar from elsewhere?
  • the earlier Scandinavian Vendel Period and Anglo-Saxon helmets: as phrased, this sounds as if the Anglo-Saxons were in Scandinavia.
  • the end of the line of: I would rephrase this in a more literal way per MOS:IDIOM ("the final development of...")?
  • In the same sentence: the subject here is "the fragment", but aren't we really talking about the helmet from which it came?
  • Is there anything in the Vlasatý article that could usefully be brought into the main text, and so promote the article into the bibliography? It's not as if we're struggling for space.
  • I had been having the same thought. I originally left it out because it's closer to the line of what constitutes a reliable source than are the peer-reviewed pieces. But it's a thoughtful piece, and includes some valuable insight, such as from a maker of replicas as to what materials were likely used. I've moved it up to the bibliography, and may add it as a cite in another place or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the bibliography, it should be cited somewhere in the text: I'll trust your judgement as to what is the best material to draw upon directly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is; what I meant was that I had moved it up to the bibliography because I cited it for a point, and that I may cite it for another point as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perhaps have an image of the Gjermundbu helmet to give us an idea of what the overall thing might have looked like?
  • contemporaneous swords, including from Norway and one found near Lipiany in Poland: examples from Norway? I understand the Norwegian connection, but what makes people think that the Polish sword is likely to be connected? Seems a long way away.
    • Now "examples". I'm no expert on Viking Age trade routes, but is it so surprising that a parallel is found in Poland? Norway is next door to Sweden; Poland is right across the Baltic Sea, and Lipiany is near the coast. Indeed, the Kyiv fragment is the farthest afield, and (if its find spot is the result of trade or other travel) may well have gone through Poland. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, absolutely; I'm just mindful that, in my field, archaeologists often have a habit of throwing together evidence which is superficially similar and comes from about the right time/place, but may not actually have a direct causal link (particularly with patterns: there's quite a lot of simple designs that people hit upon independently and use because they're pretty!). I suppose I'm asking if we've got enough in the sources to say something like "contemporaneous Viking swords", "Scandinavian-style swords" or similar -- that is, to be explicit that the Polish sword and the helmet might have some sort of relation? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a quick sentence at the end to explain what came after these helmets?

Since the nomination seems to have gone cold: I'd like to put on record that I believe this article is close to FA status, but would oppose promotion in its current state (that is, before the points raised in my review and others have been addressed). I am very open to reviewing that vote, and expect to do so if further changes to the article are made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Absolutely, but just to clarify that Usernameunique hasn't edited for a week, anywhere, so it's nothing personal to your review, I'm sure! Hope he's OK. Too much / not enough fruit beer perhaps; delete as applicable  :) ——Serial 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there I was assuming it was just the headache of handling my GA nomination... I don't mean the vote as a slight on the article at all: I'm just aware that co-ords may be looking at these reviews with a view to seeing where the consensus is at the moment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

This takes me back a bit. UC seems to be doing their usual classy job. Ping me once you have finished with their comments and I'll see what else I can find to poke at. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about adding File:Gjermundbu helmet - cropped.jpg, so a reader can more readily visualise where the fragment fits into a helmet, and what a complete helmet looks like? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with silver and niello that forms an interlaced pattern." Maybe 'with silver and niello to form an interlaced pattern'?
    • Now It is made of iron, the surface of which is covered with silver and features an interlace pattern in niello or wire.
  • "he fragment was first published in 1907". No it wasn't. A description of it was.
    • Jumping in to say that this is standard archaeologist-ese ("X was published" means "X first entered the scholarly literature"), but there's a MOS:JARGON argument for finding a more universal way to phrase this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ChrisTheDude mentioned this below also, and it does seem to generate similar reactions from a number of people. With that said, the OED's definition I.2.a for the word is "To make public or generally known", and I.3.b is "To make generally accessible or available for acceptance or use (a work of art, information, etc.); to present to or before the public; spec. to make public (news, research findings, etc.) through the medium of print or the internet." A quotation demonstrating the latter use from 1931 is "H. R. Hall publishes an Egyptian axe in the British Museum." Any reason why we shouldn't let that dictate? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the audience that Wikipedia is aimed at won't understand what is meant. I am aware of the (exclusively) academic usage and if I were previewing this article for Medieval Archaeology, or even Current Archaeology, I would be happy, for Wikipedia, I am not. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited accordingly. I do wonder, however, that we may not be giving readers enough credit—to either know the meaning, or be able to intuit it given the context. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interlace pattern". 'interlace' or 'interlaced'?
  • Could we have a description of what the function of the helmet was, with emphasis on the roles of the eyebrow piece and nose guard in this? (Betraying my military history background here.)
  • I take your point, although I'm not sure there is much we could pull out of the sources other than that "the helmet was intended to protect the head, the eyebrow piece was intended to protect the eyes, and the nose piece was intended to protect the nose." It's possible that having a prominent eyebrow piece was partly intended to help deflect glancing blows from swords, in the way that crests (such as on the Sutton Hoo helmet) likely did. As far as I'm aware, however, there would be nothing to cite for this. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You managed a lengthy section on the possible function of the Benty Grange hanging bowl with minimal reference to the subject of the article. I see no reason why the same cannot be done here, given the plentiful literature on the actual, assumed or postulated functions of iron helmets from various periods. (As part of a helmet, I feel that the function of helmets needs covering as a starting point.) I struggle to see how the article can be considered to "place the subject in context" without anything on what it is for. Any more than BGHB would have passed FAC without its section on function, nor Benty Grange helmet similarly. A cursory search on "nose guard" and "nasal piece" threw up things like page 251 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, pages 39-40, 75, 256, 298 of Medieval Weapons: An Illustrated History, page 224-225 of Warfare in Medieval Europe c.400–c.1453, or "Helmet" in The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare. I haven't even searched on things like "helmet". Searching on the rest of the fragment - the eyebrow guard part - is trickier, but I would take some persuading that the literature has been exhausted. Even then, there seems plenty of scope to place the fragment within a broad context. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! See page 25 of this: "spectacle ... guards protected against cutting blows across the face"! :-) Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • I don't see where on Fornvännen 1907, p. 208. it supports "The fragment is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide."?
  • Recommend adding a wikilink to "niello" again in the Description section.
  • "It was first described in print in the academic journal Fornvännen in 1907" – This is cited to Fornvännen 1907, p. 208, but I don't see anything in that source saying that it had never previously been described?
  • Does Thunmark-Nylén 2006a, p. 317. definitely support the statement that it is symmetrical? Because visually, it doesn't appear so.
  • Nope; I'm now not sure where I got that from, although it does look generally symmetrical to my eye (other than the fact that it was made by hand, so has obvious slight variations/imperfections). Here's what the source says: Der Beschlag ist aus Eisen und mit einer flächendeckenden Tauschierung versehen, worin man auf der breiteren Fläche ein Bandflecht-Motiv in Niello ausgeführt hat. Die anschließenden Flächen, gegen die Augenöffnung, besitzen Querbänder. Translated: The fitting is made of iron and adorned with an extensive inlay, wherein a band-braiding motif executed in niello is visible on the wider surface. The adjacent areas, toward the eye opening, feature transverse bands. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gotlands museum page describes the pattern as drakslingor [sv], which seems to be a term with at least some common usage; possibly worth adding that terminology into the article?
  • The article says "..all examples of the "crested helmets".." in the lead, and "..the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared.." in the body. However, without a wikilink or an explanation, the reader actually has no particular knowledge of what a "crested helmet" is. Could you either find a suitable page to link to, or add a description of what a crested helmet actually is.
I think an in line description would be the better option. And I should have spotted this at GAN! Nice one Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me right now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully going to oppose this for the moment; the nomination seems to have gone stale, and in its current state, the article doesn't seem quite up to Featured standards. See the request for greater context from Dudley Miles below, as well as my own. I will be more than happy to reconsider if and when further work is done on the article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, I'll try to respond tonight, but please note that I was unexpectedly traveling for a couple weeks and away from my copies of the offline sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "the fragment was first published in 1907" - can you really "publish" a chunk of metal? Maybe "documented" would be better.........?
  • Edited per above discussion. --21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • "It is one of five Viking helmets" - it isn't a helmet, it's part of a helmet
  • "the others are the Gjermundbu helmet from Norway, the Yarm helmet from England, the Tjele helmet fragment from Denmark, and a fragment from Kyiv" - three countries and one city?
  • Personally, I would just put Ukraine, for consistency with the other three. Is it really that important in the context of this article to note that the other helmet was found in the city of Ukraine specifically......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Chris on this. Let us a. be consistent and b. use the descriptor with which more readers are likely to be familiar. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Kyiv, Ukraine". Note that all the other examples each give two locations: country and find-spot (e.g., town or farm); the latter just appears in the name of the artifact, whereas for the Kyiv fragment, there is not yet a name. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Kyiv has a particular connection with Viking history (in a way that Ukraine as a whole doesn't), I think it's good that the name of the city remains. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Scandinavia and England, respectfully," - respectively, surely?

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "An iron core was either coated or inlaid with silver, which was itself inlaid with niello or wire." What is the difference between coated and inlaid. Also it does not make sense to contrast niello and wire, that is between a material and a shape.
    • Clarified: An iron core was either coated or inlaid with silver; under the former method, a grid would be cut into the iron and the silver hammered on, whereas under the latter, the silver would be filled into purpose-shaped grooves cut into the iron. The silver was then inlaid with niello or wire (possibly copper). Note that both niello and wire are materials. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the other four, the Lokrume helmet appears to have been a descendant of the earlier Vendel Period and Anglo-Saxon helmets from Scandinavia and England, respectively, and the final iteration of the "crested helmets" that appeared in Europe around the sixth century." I found this statement confusing. I thought at first that you meant crested helmets derived partly from earlier Anglo-Saxon helmets, which would be surprising as they would hardly have had time to develop their own style by then. I assume the first and second half of the sentence are separate comments, and if so this should be made clear.
  • Could this comment not be expanded, particularly as the article is so short? What were the features of Vendel and Anglo-Saxon helmets, and which features did the Lokrume one inherit from each? Is no picture or reconstruction of a similar helmet available?
File:Gjermundbu helmet - cropped.jpg, which I have already suggested be included. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added (with the hope of eventually upgrading) as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Richard Nevell

edit

Just a few passing thoughts.

  • "The pattern is patterned with intertwined bands and circles": perhaps this could be reworded?
  • I spotted Thunmark-Nylén 2006a but no Thunmark-Nylén 2006b, so the a probably isn't needed.
  • Similarly, there's a Thunmark-Nylén 2000b and Thunmark-Nylén 2000c but no Thunmark-Nylén 2000a.

It's an interesting topic and I'd like to see it end up Featured. I'm not sure I'll have time to review properly so will refrain from !voting at this stage. Good luck, Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would also be useful to include a note about Lokrume itself - is there evidence that the settlement was there in the 10th century, or does it post-date when the helmet would have presumably been in circulation? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: this has been open for more than five weeks now. With two opposes and several outstanding concerns, I think it's best to time this out now. The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia in nine days. Hopefully, when they have time, they can work with the reviewers to resolve their concerns and renominate it in the future. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lokrume_helmet_fragment/archive1&oldid=1209451810"