Template:Did you know nominations/Nigel Williams (conservator)


 * 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) 06:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams (conservator)
Source 1, The Independent (1992): "In 1968 Williams was chosen to head a small team of conservators charged with the conservation or, in some cases, re-conservation of the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship burial. ... The piece de resistance of this stage of his career was the dismantling of the 1940s restoration (by Herbert Maryon) of the Sutton Hoo helmet and the restoration to a new and altogether more believable shape"
 * ... that Nigel Williams was tasked with restoring "the most iconic object" from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made" (pictured) when only 23 years old?

Source 2, Google Arts & Culture: Sutton Hoo helmet is "the most iconic object" from "[o]ne of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made"
 * Reviewed: Hawkins v. Town of Shaw

5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 08:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC).


 * Question for, considering your comment to Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Munksgaard. Does the alteration in the above quotation ("one" for "One") need brackets (i.e., "[o]ne"), or is the change minor enough that they can be dispensed with for the sake of fluidity? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Usernameunique, I checked WP:MOSQUOTE, but it was silent about this. I typically fall back to The Chicago Manual of Style, which itself generally prefers to alter such capitalization without comment depending on the needs/structure of the sentence (lower to cap or vice versa, so "one" would be fine sans brackets), but preferences may be different in British publishing, and this is a British topic. The usage should be consistent across article and hook. I do have to question a hook fact: if Williams took the Sutton Hoo helmet apart and reassembled it over eighteen months in 1970–1971, and he was born in 1944, then he couldn't have been 23 years old when he worked on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks BlueMoonset, appreciate the input. I've put the "one" (lower case 'o') outside of the quotation to keep it consistent with the article, where the 'o' is bracketed. You are correct that Williams was slightly older when he worked on the helmet, and indeed aged a year while doing so. However, according to the source, he was "tasked" with its reconstruction earlier, in 1968. This distinction also emphasizes the point of the hook more-so than would referring to him as 25 when he started work on it; the point is that he was given and trusted with a huge responsibility when only 23. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Usernameunique, I take your point about "tasked". However, I've moved the beginning of the quote back to where it was: you're using "one" from the title of the Google article, so you can't simply move the quotation mark over to exclude that word when it's in the original. The two options are one of ...' or [o]ne of ...'; please pick either. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, in that case let's go with "[o]ne," both for your point about consistency and just to be on the safe side. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well after all that, I've found a different source with the same phrase, but no capitalization (it's also Google in conjunction with their arts initiative, so essentially one source using the same phrase two ways. Thanks for the discussion, though, and I'll keep it in mind for the future. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Interesting life and achievements, on good sources, offline source accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - The image is licensed and almost a must. I confess that I don't like the long quote in the hook that takes away from the article, imo, also: "age of 23" comes so late that readers may miss it, - how about starting with that piece of information? - You may want to add the "crowning" vase, + the filming of the process, instead of the bit sensational quote. - Article:
 * What's his name? If it's Nigel R. R. Williams, that should be the article name. Birth name - without abbr - to infobox please.
 * 2 works are marked as not used: Williams 1880, Willams 1883
 * 1 ref is marked as not used: Oddy Cook 1889
 * One "achieving" looks like "achieved" is meant, but I'm not sure enough to change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fixed the typo, put his full name in the infofox, and added a use of Oddy & Cook 1989. Being works by the subject of the article, I don't think Williams 1980 and Williams 1989 need to be used, but once I receive them I will see about incorporating them. Suggest:
 * ALT1: ... that when only 23 years old, Nigel Williams was tasked with restoring "the most iconic object" (pictured) from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made"? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We may get problems with the quotations, asking who says so, and then it may become clumsy. What do you think of
 * ALT2: ... that when only 23 years old, Nigel Williams was tasked with restoring "the most iconic object" (pictured) from a spectacular archaeological discovery? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Honestly I don't think that the quotation is a problem—the point of quotations are to indicate that it was said by someone else, so it would only be a problem if I were to term it "one of the most spectacular..." without the quotation marks. In a broader context, the Sutton Hoo discoveries are frequently termed "the greatest single discovery in the history of British archaeology" (Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. xxxii) or similar, called "Britain's Tutankhamun" (example one and two), and included in lists of top archaeological discoveries from around the world (example). The quotation certainly is not lacking support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that images are only permitted to be displayed on the main page once. Before I promote this nomination, how do I find out whether this image has already appeared on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth, I don't believe there's an absolute prohibition against redisplaying images on the main page once they've been shown. In fact, I believe there have been repeat images of some high-profile people over the years. It is certainly not a good idea to feature the same people too often, nor to repeat images too frequently. That said, the Sutton Hoo helmet image in this nomination was the lead DYK image on January 8, 2017, which may (or may not) be thought to be too soon for a repeat. It would seem that the helmet also appeared in On This Day on July 28, 2017, on the anniversary of the helmet's discovery (see Talk:Sutton Hoo helmet); if so, with two appearances already on the main page in 2017, one fewer than six weeks ago, a third 2017 posting is probably excessive. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a disinterested observer here (if it were up to me the photo would run every day), but BlueMoonset is correct that the picture has appeared on the main page of Wikipedia twice, and as its own DYK subject once. (It received 24,360 views on DYK, and 21,166 on OTD.) The DYK rules do not appear to address the multiple use of images (let alone levy an absolute prohibition against them), but here's another image that could work (licensed and used in the article on the helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If acceptable, it would also have to appear in the conservator's article. How about the vase instead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure the Portland Vase article is up to snuff—it has over a dozen "citation needed" and "original research?" tags throughout. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As Gerda points out, if you want to use the replica image with the hook, you need to add it to the curator's article (one of the DYK rules). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about leaving this mysteriously without image? The replica is not this person's work, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me too, although ultimately up to the promoter. But I disagree that the replica is not "his work." Just because an architect does not drive a forklift does not mean that a building is not their work, and indeed the replica helmet is directly derivative of the work Williams did reconstructing and "solving" the original. The helmet looked a lot different before he set to work. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)