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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2018 [1].

Gevninge helmet fragment[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gevninge helmet fragment, a gilded piece of metal that would fit in the palm of your hand, is seemingly ripped from the charred pages of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf. It was found in Gevninge, a coastal Danish village by Lejre, the contemporary royal capital and thought to be the site of the fabled mead hall Heorot. Beowulf’s trip to the hall takes him by such an outpost, where a “noble warrior”, brandishing a spear, rides down to meet him. If ever there were an artifact that one could imagine as singularly identifiable with a place and a person in Beowulf, the Gevninge helmet fragment is it.

Short and complete, this article covers all the relevant literature, much of which is in Danish. It has been expanded since its recognition as a good article last year, and is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Changed to "modern-day village in Denmark to the west of Roskilde."
  • Added to "Description".
  • Added to "Context and Beowulf ("evidence of both historical fact and of legend").
  • Can't argue with you there; every time I've read it I've wondered if I should take it out. Gone.
  • Thanks for your review and support, FunkMonk. I assume that it was discovered during excavations led by Tom Christensen, but I haven't seen that explicitly stated; just sent him a email asking exactly when it was found, and by whom. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment from Brianboulton[edit]

As an uninformed reader of this topic, I think the specific notability of this artefact needs to be more clearly highlighted in the lead, preferably in the opening paragraph. Is it a question of age? Or because it's the only one of its kind? Or does it have particular historical significance? Or some other reason? Some early clarification would give me better guidance in reading the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Brianboulton. I added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph, please let me know what you think. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's definitely helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport by Richard Nevell[edit]

That's a fascinating find, I can see why it caught your attention. The article is detailed, and while I am not familiar with the literature in this area of archaeology it looks to be well researched. While this page is an interesting read, the prose needs a bit more work to improve its readability and it would be worth considering the weight given to Beowulf in this context.

  • The problem with "right" and "left," which dexter and sinister solves, is that they do not give an indication of orientation. "Right" can be from the perspective of the wearer or from the perspective of an observer, who may herself be oriented in any direction. Some (e.g., Price & Mortimer) deal with this by adding a footnote or explanation saying that the orientation of the wearer is assumed, others (e.g., Maryon 1947) deal with this by using dexter and sinister. A benefit of this is that once it is explained it remains clear, while a footnote or tangential explanation can get lost. Another benefit of this is consistency; this terminology hasn't been an issue in two other similar articles that have gone through FAC, Pioneer helmet and Shorwell helmet.
  • Added qualifiers and a citation. Qualification is appropriate in the absence of definitive knowledge, but there aren't really any competing candidates.
  • Not entirely clear, but as said in the above comments, I sent Christensen an email asking this. Haven't yet heard back.
  • It would be interesting to include if Christensen does reply, but if not then we of course have to work within the limits of the sources. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased. The undeveloped hectare has some significance. If you click on the coordinates in the infobox and select a satellite view, you'll see how the undeveloped plot stands out as one of the few such areas in the middle of the village.
  • The article says "If buried alone, it might have been an allusion to the one-eyed god Odin who sacrificed an eye in exchange for wisdom and intelligence in Norse mythology." What else are you looking for? Price & Mortimer make a convincing case that from the sixth century to the Viking Age there was a deliberate practice of eye removal or alteration in a variety of objects, and that this was connected in some way to the belief that Odin had one eye. The significance is much less clear. Price & Mortimer (and others), on this and other evidence, attempt to connect the Sutton Hoo helmet to the face of Odin, and suggest that its wearer—likely a king—was invoking divine kinship and authority. Yet enough objects have been found, in enough different circumstances, that it is clear the meaning transcended rulers trying to say they were divine. Price & Mortimer interpret the similar eyebrow from Uppåkra in the context of its discovery near a building "interpreted as having cultic functions," and among a deposit of weapons. As they argue, "[g]iven the context of military sacrifice, the eyebrow must represent a deliberate deposit and was likely removed from its helmet for that purpose." That's not much to go on—really, it's the context for the significance rather than the significance itself—and given that the area around the Gevninge fragment was only explored with metal detectors, the significance for this piece is even less clear.
My thinking is less about the allusion to Odin (which IMO is pretty clear) but why finding an eyepiece on its own might indicate it was deliberately deposited. To the general reader, loss might sound very plausible so a small addition might be worthwhile. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my changes and the copy edit, the phrase now reads "the fragment provides a nexus between legend and historical fact."
  • You'll see some of the relevant text from Christensen 2002, along with a translation, at the Gevninge DYK nomination. As you will see, he explicitly links the fragment to the poem, and includes lines from the same passage quoted in this article. Christensen also includes more of a discussion of decorated helmets serving as status symbols and objects connected to ceremonies, which is briefly discussed in this article but could be expanded upon; it's always tenuous to discuss the social significance of prehistoric objects, however. To the extent that what Beowulf says about helmets is relevant, it is generally included in the relevant articles: see, e.g., Sutton Hoo helmet#Beowulf, Guilden Morden boar#Boar-crests in Beowulf, and Pioneer Helmet#Boar-crests in Beowulf.
  • It now reads "The Gevninge helmet fragment was discovered by itself, with no other nearby artefacts to give it some context." I'll add some more information on the other finds.
  • Nothing that has been published. I can ask Christensen if he responds; I can also ask the museum, with whom I have been in contact. The latter I'd prefer to leave until after we clear up the major aspects of your comments, however.

I've made some changes to the text myself, but I think it would be worth getting another editor to give the article a copy edit. The article is an interesting read and I left it feeling more informed about Viking helmets, and there are some fascinating details in there, but for me the issues with the weight on Beowulf and the need for some extra copyediting pushed me to oppose. I hope these comments are useful because this has the makings of a fine article. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Richard Nevell, specific comments are above. Dilidor has kindly copy-edited the article, which hopefully addresses your readability concerns. From what I can tell of your comments, your main concern is the article's treatment of Beowulf. Perhaps the Christensen translation linked above will help allay this concern, for he treats the connection between Gevninge, the Gevninge helmet fragment, and Beowulf both seriously and explicitly. That's the main significance of the Gevninge fragment. We could always add a section discussing social significance/function (see, e.g., second paragraph of Shorwell helmet#Function), but the Gevninge fragment isn't the best conduit for that discussion. That discussion is better suited for better-preserved helmets, for trying to analyze the significance of an entire object when only a fragment of it remains introduces a second layer of speculation. Moreover, the Gevninge fragment is uniquely suited to the discussion of Beowulf, for it is a military piece from a military outpost akin to the military outpost visited by Beowulf and his men. In other words, the fragment tells us nothing new about the social status of helmets and those who wore them during the Nordic Iron Age and Viking Age, but it does tell us something new about Gevninge, something new about Beowulf, and something new about the relationship between the two of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard Nevell, I have now reformatted and added to the article. The primary addition is a "Function" section, which discusses how the fragment would have demonstrated rank and status. This level of discussion has been removed from "Context and Beowulf", which now focuses solely on the role of Gevninge and the role of the place Beowulf passes through, and the relationship between them. Now that I believe all your concerns have been addressed I would welcome your response. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my oppose as the article has clearly changed - holding off changing to support until I've had a chance to reread the article properly. Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy few weeks. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking the oppose, Richard Nevell. Take your time on the second read; been busy over here too! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: I've had a chance to re-read the article and the prose is much smoother. If the emphasis on Beowulf reflects Christensen's work then it's reasonable to take that approach here. Good work with the article, it's interesting to see how one can be structured around a small find. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Nice work on this, Usernameunique. Good to see these articles being expanded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede:

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Changed to "The Gevninge helmet fragment, a military piece from a riverside outpost, therefore sheds light on the relationship between historical fact and legend."

Description:

  • Abbreviated both.
  • Linked to gilding, which should make clear that the coating is of gold.
  • Done.
  • Done. Unlinked Beowulf in "Context and Beowulf".
  • Done.
  • It's being used as an indefinite pronoun meaning "a person," are you sure that's not correct?
  • Changed to "Adornments like the Gevninge helmet fragment..."

Thanks for your comments, Midnightblueowl. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work, Usernameunique. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Yes; added a footnote to the caption to make it clear.
ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I hope I haven't missed the party!

Very nice. I particularly enjoyed the way the helmet has been linked so closely with Beowulf! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

The sources look to be in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. My only (trivial ) query: is there a reason for the absence of "p." or "pp." in the Beowolf citations? Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review of yet another of my FAC nominations, Brianboulton. The citations are to the lines, which is more precise, and the way in which Beowulf is normally cited; pages differ per edition, but the lines are always the same. I've given pages for Heaney's translation, by contrast, as it's one edition rather than a general work, but could change that to the lines as well if you think it better. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of readers, you could precede the Beowulf numbers with "line", but the point is small and I'll leave it to you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More