Template:Did you know nominations/Coppergate Helmet


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Coppergate Helmet

 * ... that the Anglo-Saxon Coppergate Helmet (pictured) may have been hidden in a well during the Viking invasion of York?? Tweddle 1992: "It is tempting to link these facts, and the inferences from them, with the Viking capture of York in AD 866. In these circumstances an escaping Anglo-Saxon might have been glad to discard such an obvious symbol, perhaps intending to  recover  it later."
 * ALT1:... that the archaeologists who excavated the best preserved Anglo-Saxon helmet (pictured) opposed its restoration? Source: Corfield 1988, p. 264: "The York Archaeological Trust, who had been responsible for the excavation and conservation of the helmet, were dismayed at the proposed work and protested strongly that evidence would be destroyed by restoration."
 * ALT2:... that the Coppergate Helmet (pictured) is the best preserved Anglo-Saxon helmet? Source: Tweddle 1992: "The helmet is one of only three such objects of any completeness known from Britain, and, although not the most elaborate of them, it is by far the best preserved, with even the original metal surviving and not, as so often, merely the corrosion products."
 * Reviewed: Wayne Jacks; Ben Hess
 * Comment: Two holiday-induced issues: First, many of the citations are currently in hidden text, because the online copy of Tweddle 1992 (the main resource for the helmet) somehow messed up the page numbers. When I have access to a copy with the correct page numbers later this week I'll put them in. Second, the article is a couple days late, but hoping for leniency under Rule D9.

5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk) and Urselius (talk). Nominated by Usernameunique (talk) at 10:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This is a very nice article on a very nice topic (I live about 500 metres from where this was found, incidentally, but can't remember seeing it when I went to the Yorkshire Museum... They had a big Viking exhibit and so I missed some rooms... Anyway...), and we have no danger of a DYK backlog, so I am not concerned about the fact that the expansion started a few days ago. I am concerned about the fact that some of the references have not yet been properly added to the article (I can't really pass this until that's done), and I'm not keen on the second wikilink in ALT2, but do like all three hooks. I definitely think that this should be a lead hook if possible, as we have such a wonderful picture. No other concerns at this stage. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and the review, . I'll ping you when I get the references in good shape. It's possible the helmet just wasn't there when you visited. It was at the Jorvik Centre for a month this year, and it was exhibited at the British Museum in 2010 (I think when the Yorkshire Museum was being renovated). It has probably been exhibited elsewhere as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , just letting you know that I've got the references in order. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Very good! Any hook works (though I recommend you consider changing the link in alt2) and all would make an excellent lead hook. If you're thinking about GAC, aim to incorporate some further citations; there's nothing wrong with Tweddle 1992, of course, but leaning too strongly on one source can be problematic! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've removed the link from ALT2 (which I tend to think is the least interesting hook anyways). The article still needs significant expansion before it will be ready for GAC, so hopefully that will add more diversity to the cited sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If/when you nominate it, please feel free to message me; if time permits, I'd be very happy to offer a review! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the offer ! That's the plan, and I will let you know when it happens. If you're interested, the very similar Pioneer Helmet is up for review at the moment. But please feel no pressure unless you genuinely would like to do so; with the pace of reviews for military articles, the nomination is unlikely to grow stale. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)