Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Corleck Head/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Corleck Head

edit
Toolbox

A haunting piece of stone sculpture thought to have been created only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. Hoping to get this to FAC in a few months, but help is needed; gaps in coverage, paddyisims, spelling and stuff.

Article is a recently passed GA, and am working on sister articles, and gathering sources for a parent – Celtic stone idols. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

Good to see this one up here -- I had noticed it around GA and I'm glad it's finally been promoted!

  • to the 1st or 2nd century AD. Each face has a similarly enigmatic expression, closely set eyes, a broad, flat nose, and a simply drawn mouth. Although its origin cannot be known for certain, its dating to the Early Iron Age: unless Irish chronology works very differently to what I'm used to, that's not the early Iron Age -- that generally caps out about 500 BCE.
    Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • similar iconography from contemporary northern European Celtic artefacts: I think we need to be a little careful on the phrasing here, particularly contemporary. What we mean, I think, is that we've got secure dates for those artefacts to the C1st-C2nd, and that they look like the Corleck Head, so we assume that they're contemporary with it. The current phrasing implies that they're definitely contemporary with the head, which puts the cart before the horse.
  • Who knows when any pre-historic sculpture was produced, except from its iconography and deduced influences. I might swap "contemporary" with "earlier" as they are obviously predecessors rather than influenced by. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The head was found c. 1855: Personally, I'm not a fan of abbreviations in flowing text. I can wear "dated to c. 2500 BC", but would advise "found around 1855", "in approximately 1855", or something more prosey for the first.
  • The archaeological evidence indicates that it was used for ceremonial purposes at Corleck Hill: I might be missing it, but I don't actually see any evidence of this offered in the article (plus, it's a well-known and only half-joking refrain that "ritual" is archaeologist-speak for "I have no idea").
    I need to do an article on the Hill, which has a fascinating archaeology history throwing up stuff from the Neolitic to the early modern era. Editing on my phone rn, but hang on a few days. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish: this is a bit loose -- yes, there are good dating techniques for other artefact classes that don't work on stone, but it isn't inherently more difficult to establish something's cultural significance because it's made of granite rather than gold, and we also have lots of other perfectly good dating techniques (stratigraphy, most obviously) which do work, and indeed were just about our only options for anything before about the 1950s.
  • How come the Corleck Head gets two capitals but the Corraghy head gets one? I'm not sure we need to resolve that between the two articles, but we should be consistent within the one.
    There are two Corraghy Heads. Agree and have done a page move. Ceoil (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • association with human sacrifice, traditions the early Christian church suppressed: as phrased, this is a bit misleading -- nobody was doing any human sacrifice in the EMA for the Christian church to be suppressing, though you're right that they would have taken a rather dim view of artefacts seen to be associated with it.
  • Well spotted; will adjust claim accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It came to national attention: good practice is not to use a pronoun (it) whose antecedent is in a different paragraph -- instead, repeat the head or similar.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When found it was a local curiosity placed on top of a farm gatepost: being pedantic, this only happened after it was found. When found, it was in the dirt, and nobody had ever heard of it.
  • It is listed as number 11 in the 2011 Irish Times anthology A History of Ireland in 100 Objects.: MOS:LEAD would like this in the body somewhere (can we have a section about its reception, legacy and modern treatment?) Is the number particularly significant -- we imply here that it makes it somehow the 11th most important, but I suspect they're simply arranged in chronological order?
    Yes chronological order; have rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we do a multiple image that shows the different faces of the head as you move around? I'm struggling from the existing pictures to get a sense of what it actually looks like in the round, or to tell what's a new face versus something I've seen before.
    I have a bunch of pics on my phone; will upload to commons and maybe do a gallery rather than left-right placement within text. Ceoil (talk)
    Have switched to gallery and added a few more pics...now we have tree showing close up of the individual faces, and three wider shots attempting to mimic walking around it...ie in the round. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also [1], which will try and reproduce as a composite image.. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting quite a strong MOS:SANDWICH, on Vector 22, between the two head thumbnails.

More to come. I'm afraid this is going to be quite nit-picky, as I've got an archaeological background (though not in this particular field), but I hope it's useful -- please do tell me when I'm being over-pedantic or have just missed the point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nick picky works for me, thanks a bunch for looking. Will get to shortly Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put another batch down. New gallery looks good -- I wonder whether putting it in its own section and making explicit the relationship between the photographs (moving clockwise/anticlockwise around the object) would be neater?

  • early Christians: I'm not sure I quite understand this -- I'm not totally sure when we are, chronologically. However, I'd suggest that by the time we're talking about a Christian movement that's big enough and powerful enough to be intimidating people into hiding their idols, we're no longer in "early" Christianity, which to me at least really means Christianity prior to its official endorsement by/merger with the Roman state.
  • Thomas J. Barron, 1902–1992,: MOS:BIO discourages using dates like this.
  • Longmore sold the lease on the farm to Thomas Hall in 1865. His son, Sam Hall: neater grammatically as Hall's son, Sam, -- grammatically speaking, the current framing invites the question "Longmore's or Hall's", even though it's semantically strikingly obvious from the name.
  • The local historian and folklorist Thomas J. Barron was the first to recognise its age and significance after seeing it in 1934 while a researcher for the Irish Folklore Commission: not clear in context which sculpture we're talking about.
  • During his initial research, Barron interviewed Emily Bryce, a relative of the Halls, who remembered childhood visits throwing stones at it at the farm.: I need a bit of convincing that this passes muster for relevance/encyclopaedic value -- show me any work of art that's been in plain view and not had stuff thrown at it.
    Yes but, the point is that its age was not recognised, which have tried in a recent edit to make clearer.re the John Reilly quote below, that was to establish its provenance. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also interviewed the 87-year-old local man John Reilly, who had memories of viewing it at the school in Corleck, shortly after it had been discovered by Longmore: likewise.
  • Barron contacted the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) in 1937, after which the NMI director Adolf Mahr arranged its permanent loan to the museum for study: for clarity and style, don't use a pronoun whose antecedent is further up than the paragraph we're currently in.
  • In a lecture to The Prehistoric Society: suggest introducing who these people are. Stylistically, it's usual to decap the the of proper nouns beginning with it in mid-sentence: "he wrote to the Times about the Beatles".
  • Dating stone sculpture is extremely difficult given that techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used: I would give a quick footnote to explain why this is so (and perhaps add that there are other scientific techniques, such as thermoluminescence, which work on other artefact classes, particularly ceramics, but not on stone).
  • The link on "iconic" shouldn't be to cultural icon: we mean something like Figurative art.
  • are mostly thought <to> date from <between> 300 BC and 100 AD,<:> that is<,> at the end of the La Tène period: suggest fixes as indicated.
  • how, until at least 1836, the hill contained a stone circle on its peak: why not move the parenthetical clause to the end, for clarity?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous society that assimilated and adapted external cultural influences.: this is cited to a source from 1984. The scholarship on "Celts" is moving fast over the last few years -- in particular, a lot of people are now very circumspect about exactly what that term means -- so can we use a more recent source?
    Agree. Planning to rewrite this whole section. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which reached Ireland c. 300 BC: I've said my piece on circa in flowing text, but in this context I don't think it's grammatical at all: here we need around.
  • the Romano-British period (between 43 and 410 AD): this is the second time we've mentioned it -- why give the date now, not on first mention?
  • pre-historic: almost always one word.
  • Being very picky, the Romano-British period never happened in Gaul.
    Yes. I do say later The Corleck Head's format and details were likely influenced by a wider European tradition, in particular from contemporary Romano-British (between 43 and 410 AD) and Gallo-Roman iconography. Thinking how to resolve. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early forms of Ancient Celtic religion: decap ancient, but consider losing the word altogether.
  • Typically, they were utilised at larger cult or worship sites ... The hole at its base... -- see earlier comment about pronouns and antecedents.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Representations of human heads are often found in Insular or Gaulish Celtic artefacts: in doesn't quite read right -- on?
  • the druids (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures): we've had Druids before, so odd to mention them just now. They had a capital letter the last time, too.
  • the Romans dismissed the druids (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures) as relatively primitive enemies: I'm not sure this is quite true -- at times, they presented the Druids as a very serious threat that needed to be stamped on -- how much that was a convenient excuse for a bit of state violence is another question, but it's not quite accurate to say that they always looked at the Druids as too primitive to worry about.
    Intend to rewrite this section. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armagh County: "County Armagh", surely?
  • Aldhouse-Green (2015), "The Seeing Stone of Corleck": why no page number here?
  • Check consistency of capitalisation on (e.g.) "No." in sources.
  • When a location is included in the publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press), it's normal practice not to then specify the location separately.
  • Capitalisation of titles seems to be inconsistent in the bibliography.
  • YouTube is a WP:SPS -- can we vouch for Jonathan Smyth's expertise under those high standards? I know he's cited in the article, but those sources have stronger review processes, so we don't need to put as much weight on the author as we do here.
    I'm comfortable as he is obviously a subject matter expert (having for one written Barron's biography). Also strictly speaking the lecture was published by Cavan County Library Services (part of Cavan County Council,[2] in collaboration with the Cavan Arts office (funded by the Irish Arts Council). You could argue Utube is the platform rather than the publisher; if the Cavan Library had a copy on their website it mightn't be an issue. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: Cavan County Council, with all respect to them, don't have the same academic cachet as (say) Oxford University Press, so the same would apply -- we'd need to be satisfied that Smyth himself needs no fact-checking to be reliable. I don't think that's going to be a huge problem, but just something to keep in your back pocket for FAC, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Google books, much as I distrust them from the very fiber of my being, says that "Jonathan Andrew Smyth was born in Drogheda in 1973. He writes 'Times Past', a weekly history column for The Anglo-Celt, and his writing has appeared in many publications both general and academic. He works for the Public Library Service in Co. Cavan, Ireland."[3] He is essentially trained librarian and amateur local historian that has nonetheless become expert and respected in his area...a bit like Barron. Understand your caution and prepared to defend. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, some question-marks there -- librarians are not academics, and the Anglo-Celt is a local newspaper -- that doesn't really establish his credibility as a scholar. To me, the line his writing has appeared in many publications both general and academic would be key -- if you can find some publications on this topic in good university-press volumes, for example, that would be hugely reassuring. Again, really something to consider before FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats sounds fair/about right. Will start and cite the claims to others; there is little in the video that isnt in other sources used. Will keep the Bannon bio though I think. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some v. interesting points. Will take about a week to look through, research and respond. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a belated update, the references relying on the video have been swapped out. UC, your review was exhaustive and very, very useful from my side; really brought the article on. I think Ive addressed everything, although I do need to add more clarity on the head cult section.I'm in no rush to FAC (heavy work stuff coming up), but wondering if this PR should be wrapped up. Of course more pointers would be gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad it's been useful. It looks like you've sorted pretty much everything: do ping me if there's something you'd particularly like me to look at, otherwise I'll see you at FAC when you get round to bringing it there. Very much enjoyed reading this article and working on it with you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

edit

happy to see this finally passed GAN! i love archaeology and especially that of the Celts (it's what i'm doing my degree in), so hopefully i can give some useful feedback here. i'll hopefully get to this within the next few days ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer that since this is a casual PR, none of my suggestions are binding etc.
i'll be back for more, although it seems like UC is on top of the prose suggestions. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UC has my head spinning in a good way. I like to be described as "vintage" re citations; not a big fan of templates, and old dogs new tricks and all that. When UC is finished with the prose etc stuff, would appreciate another look pls. Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll be honest i had forgotten that this PR was still open, but i've just given the article another look-over and i really don't have any issues to raise. in the state it's in, i'd support it at FAC. good work :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC PR sidebar

edit

I added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing the PRs listed there. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Corleck_Head/archive1&oldid=1254577563"