Talk:Anglo-Saxon art

Blog post by pro

 * and see comments Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Anglo-Saxon art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015224136/http://www.dur.ac.uk/sculpturecorpus/Corpus_Website_Main_Folder/grammar_pages/Chapter2/Hogbacks.htm to http://www.dur.ac.uk/sculpturecorpus/Corpus_Website_Main_Folder/grammar_pages/Chapter2/Hogbacks.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331215645/http://www.fathom.com:80/course/10701049/index.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/10701049/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Article quality
Although it has some nice pictures, the overall quality of the prose really isn't very good. If you look at this revert by, I think we can see a problem. I'd much rather discuss why this is a bad edit here than take it down a behavioural route. In the first instance, it'd be interesting to get other input. --John (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I prefer Johnbod's version, particularly the restoration of 'howevers'. I do not understand the prejudice against this useful word, which signals to the reader that the following sentence qualifies the comment in the previous one. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be cautious about taking John's views as gospel. He gets bees in his bonnet which are harmless but silly. And to maintain that the prose "isn't very good" is nonsense. However, as to "however" I go along some of the way with him. It is a perfectly good word in the right place, but more often than not it adds little or nothing to the prose. For example, in my view "However, there are exceptions" would be stronger without the "however". Some other howevers in the original text were wholly unobjectionable. As to the wholesale replacement of "a number of" with "several" (or vice versa) this is a matter of personal preference: neither seems to me better than the other (though I must add that Fowler, though admitting both, prefers "several") and the original author's preference should prevail. While I'm quoting Fowler, I should add that he is perfectly relaxed about "however"s in the right place, and is chiefly concerned to persuade us not to use them when they lead to ambiguity: not a matter relevant to this article, where there is no such problem.  Tim riley  talk    09:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! I'm in little danger of "taking John's views as gospel". I accept there are rather too many "howevers" (and comma-less ones into the bargain) and "a number of".  What really got my goat initially was the blandification of turning "Anglo-Saxon society was massively disrupted in the 9th century, especially the later half, by the Viking invasions....", an understatement if ever there was one, with "Anglo-Saxon society was severely disrupted in the 9th century, especially the later half, by the Viking invasions,...", making it sound as though there was engineering work on the line, or a broken-down lorry blocking a lane.  What combination of ignorance of the subject area and a tin ear led to him thinking this was a good idea, I don't know.  In fact by my count there are 11 "number of"s, which he changed to "some" in 5 cases, nothing in 5 more, and "several" only once.  To my mind "a number of" suggests a smaller number than "some" or no attempt at quantification, and that is appropriate here, as the actual counts of the various surviving pieces being talked about can mostly be done with fingers. Changing "Anglo-Saxon art survives mostly in illuminated manuscripts, Anglo-Saxon architecture, a number of very fine ivory carvings, and some works in metal and other materials." to "Anglo-Saxon art survives mostly in illuminated manuscripts, Anglo-Saxon architecture, ivory carvings, and some works in metal and other materials." was especially annoying and bad, as compared to the Continent the number of AS ivory carvings is very small, but the quality nearly always very high. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Chipping in just to comment on "however": I too go looking for this word to see if it can be removed, but I agree with Dudley that it's a useful word and should not be removed wholesale. The reason to look for it is that it is very often overused, even by good writers.  I think good writers look for ways to join thoughts to make the prose flow, and may use "however" as a conjunction when there is little in the way of contrast or qualification.  Exactly where the boundary should be drawn is a matter of opinion and it's easy to be too enthusiastic about getting rid of "however"s, but I quite understand a copyeditor looking hard at each instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that is what John does - he just removes them all. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Lovely. I'll leave you to it; with edits like this we can be confident that the article will be awful forever. "A number of very fine ivory carvings..." isn't really encyclopedic writing of course, is it? More like a blurb in a listings magazine. --John (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Bye, then Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)