Talk:Shorwell helmet/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Detailed comments
Images
 * I've recently fallen foul of this myself, so I'm very sympathetic, but I have some concerns about the image in the lead. The claim is that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", but arguably that's not strictly true. The British Museum might in the future put the helmet on public display, or even allow you access to their archive to take your own photo, however unlikely either of those scenarios may appear. I'm not going to make an isue of it for the purposes of this review, just alerting you to the potential attitude of the more aggressive of the image police.
 * Thanks, . I get your point—recently had a discussion with someone who tagged the Emesa helmet photograph for deletion, on similar grounds. That one is hidden in an underground bunker until the Syrian Civil War is over, at which point, presumably, someone can trot over and take a free picture. The administrator who reviewed the image decided that it was "not ... reasonably replaceable" and allowed it to stay (for now), so hopefully a similar view would be taken of the Shorwell helmet photograph, if the issue comes up. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead
 * "Only the Shorwell helmet and five others stand testament to the excavation of thousands of contemporary graves ..." I don't understand what this is trying to say. In what sense does any number of helmets stand testament to anything?
 * Thanks for the detailed copy edit, . I could change the above line to "...stand as testament to...", or to "Despite the excavation of thousands of Anglo-Saxon graves, only six helmets, including the one from Shorwell, have been found, indicating the rarefied status of its owner."
 * I like your second suggestion, "Despite ...". Eric   Corbett  00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , done. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography
 * Williams, Nigel (1992) doesn't appear to have been used in the article.
 * Removed. It was cited earlier, but no longer. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a very nice piece of work for which I must congratulate you. I think we're done with the review now. Eric   Corbett  00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)