Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this shortly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * What's mild steel? Can this be explained or linked?
 * Linked to Carbon steel.


 * "fierce presence" and "whoom-factor!" look like quotes, where are they from?
 * Cited.


 * Speaking of which, a statement like "Steel is Kirby's favoured medium, giving him a "whoom-factor!" seen in Sutton Hoo Helmet" needs to be unpacked. How does steel provide a "whoom-factor", and how is that reflected in the sculpture? If that's someone's opinion, you need to say whose.
 * Reworded and added a bit of explanation. The National Trust was the one who said it has a "wow factor" (which is close enough to Kirby's term, "whoom factor", to be equated), which I can say if you think necessary; it’s attrubuted in the body of the article, however.


 * "The sculpture is also illustrative of Kirby's figural oeuvre" also needs to be unpacked. Is "figural oeuvre" a technical term with a specific meaning? If so, explain it as a technical term. If not, is it possible to reword to make that clearer for the layman?
 * Rephrased.


 * Background
 * Can the second sentence be broken up somehow? It's quite lengthy.
 * Changed the semicolon to a period.


 * Could you clarify the importance of the Beowulf connection for readers who might not be familiar with it?
 * Added a clause, can add more if you think it needs more.


 * Is there any more information available about the making of the helmet? No problem if it's not available but I'd love to see detail about the process or the artist's thinking.
 * Nothing that I’ve been able to find, despite an extensive search. I also emailed both Kirby and the National Trust some time back, but didn’t get a response from either.


 * Along that line, what did Kirby get paid for the helmet?
 * Don't know. Looked for this also as it may be public information, but didn’t find anything; any suggestions?


 * Do we know who bought the maquette?
 * No idea (or even whether it was sold at all), and the gallery would probably be hesitant to say if asked.


 * Description
 * I feel like this section either needs to be expanded somehow, or merged in with one of the other two (probably "Themes").
 * I'm not sure what other detail could be added here - maybe how it was colored red, or how the plates are held together (looks like a scaffolding?).
 * Added the steel frame, which means the section now includes pretty much everything that’s in a source. Beyond that, "Themes" could be made a subsection of "Description" if you think that’s better.


 * Themes
 * "Fierce presence" gets mentioned three times in the article but it's never expanded on what exactly that means, or why it's important. It just feels like it gets so much emphasis for so little informational payoff.
 * Removed the third use. There’s not much more in the source that expands upon what a "fierce presence" is, but I think it’s somewhat self-explanatory, and that many would agree that whatever a fierce presence is, Sutton Hoo Helmet has it.


 * "effected from 1970 to 1971 by Nigel Williams" - awkward. People don't usually "effect" things, we build them or design them or make them.
 * Changed to "reassembled".


 * "evoking the way an archaeologist would reconstruct an object." Your first and second clauses describe an object, your third describes a person. How about "evoking an object reconstructed by an archaeologist," to make it consistent?
 * Done.


 * Same concerns about "figural oeuvre" as above.
 * Is this not explained by the following sentence, "Much of Kirby's work focuses on the human face and form..."?


 * Can you really say that a sculpture of a mask has a mask-like quality? Is that not redundant?
 * Changed to "unemotive".


 * Third sentence, starting "Kirby also works in steel" is tortured. You're all twisted up in commas and sub-clauses. "Kirby turned to steel for what he saw as "whoom-factor" and "the ability to go huge" is a far simpler way of saying the same thing.
 * Rephrased along your lines.


 * Fourth sentence doesn't need a "likewise".
 * Removed.


 * Are there any more reviews of the work? It would be good to see a greater variety of critical reception.
 * Nothing that I’ve been able to find.

On the whole it isn't bad, but I think it could use some work before being promoted to Good status. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . I think I’ve responded to all your points above, please let me know what you think. —Usernameunique (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's looking better. Remaining thoughts: I still think the Description section could be merged with Themes (but perhaps keep the Description title). It's so short, and much of the content in Themes is concerned with the appearance of the helmet ("it emulates the fragmentary appearance..."), so it fits together fairly naturally.
 * "Figural oeuvre" still reads to me like art-world jargon. The meaning of the phrase is not immediately clear to the layman. Actually, the more I re-read that sentence, the more I find it redundant - the Description section has already told us the helmet is steel and the next sentence explains the focus of his work much more clearly. The only "new" fact there is that steel is Kirby's favored medium. You could migrate that fact elsewhere into the paragraph...you know what, I'm going to just be BOLD and merge it to show you what I'm thinking. Feel free to revert me if you really hate it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that,, looks great—you're right that the "Description" and "Themes" sections go well together. Anything else that you'd like me to adjust? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm glad you're cool with it. As I was writing my response I realized I was literally rewriting the paragraph in my head so it seemed neater to just go ahead with it :) I think the remainder of my concerns have been addressed, so if you're ok with keeping the section merge as-is, I'd say this is a pass. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merge into the main article per the above section. Congrats on the GA, by the way, .  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 09:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What? I wasn't proposing a merge into any other article, I was proposing the merge of the "Themes" and "Descriptions" sections, which I have already done. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for reviewing and passing this. is having a bit of fun in reliving this article's history—the article survived nominations for both a deletion and a merge before I nominated it here. Do you think it would stand a chance at FAC? It’s extremely short, but despite much searching, I’ve been unable to find any other information about it. —Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohh, sorry. I was lost there :P I'm not sure if it'd make it through FAC, it's really short. But you could always hit up peer review first to see what they think. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)