Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Book of Kells

Book of Kells
Self nomination. This was a FAC last year. That conversation is here. The article has largely been rewritten since then. It has been on Peer Review for the last two weeks. That discusion is here. Dsmdgold 23:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent work. However, the images of the pages show a variety of colour casts, which is irritating and distracting. It would be good if this problem was fixed. Oh, and some of them are GIFs. Ugh. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank, you. The variety of color casts is a result of, I think, of the variety age of the original photos from which the files were made.  I am a bit graphically challenged, but even if I had the skills, I would be loth to muck with the colors too much, as whatever I did would be no more likely to reproduce the actual colors of the book, than what exists. I will try to replace the GIFs. Dsmdgold 00:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK, how's this? Do you prefer the original version or the "fixed" version? It's a one-step process in Adobe Photoshop, so I can easily do the rest if you like... GeorgeStepanek\talk  07:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks nicer, but which one is closer to the true color as one would see it if you were looking at it? - Taxman 13:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is my concern also. Since I don't have access to the original, or the facsimile (any one want to "loan" me $18,000?), I simply don't know.  I would think that in the original the background color and texture would vary considerably from folio to folio (or even from one side of the same folio to the other).  However if it bugs enough people, I would not object to the color being adjusted so that the pictures are consistent, because when you get right down to it they are all probably wrong. Dsmdgold 18:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I own a small book (ISBN 1858910048) that reproduces many of these photos, and it shows the same range of colour casts. So maybe they're real, and actually present in the original pages. Let's not muck around with them. GeorgeStepanek\talk   04:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, nice article, well illustrated and written. Filiocht 10:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, though it certainly needs inline citations for important or possibly contentious points. - Taxman 13:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although I do think that adjusting the color balance on the images is a good idea. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, fantastic article - very extensive and well referenced. CGorman 21:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. My previous objections are resolved nicely, and the article has improved since. Jeronimo 21:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although I agree with the comments of Taxman. The 'Decoration' section could be broken up more. --bainer 22:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have subdivided the decoration in an experimental way. I personally don't like the subdivision, so I have not altered the article.  My experimental dubdivision is here. Is this better for you? Dsmdgold 00:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support hesitantly. It's generally very well-written, and beautifully illustrated (disclaimer: I submitted the image of John the Evangelist). But much of the discussion in the "Description" section is extremely hard to follow.  The opening paragraph, especially, demands a level of familiarity with folios, quires, bifolia, etc., that I do not possess (and I'm both a decently trained amateur historian and a person with a fair interest in manuscripts and early books).  When we seek to feature technical topics, we often demand that a certain amount of explanation be added, and while I think the added explanations can be mildly irritating to an expert who wants to get to the meat of things, I think it really helps WP's readability and user-friendliness.  So while I certainly support the excellent article, I'd like to see some careful simplification of the Description section -- not necessarily cutting any of the valuable information there, but taking more time to explain what exactly many of the technical terms tell us about the physical composition of the book. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added a parenthetical statement that defines the terms. It is ugly, and mucks with the flow of the paragraph.  However, you are correct, we don't readers to get lost in technical language. Does this help, or does the paragraph need a complete rewrite? Dsmdgold 00:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it was helpful if awkward, but GeorgeStepanek came along and "fixed" it by simply removing it....I guess we should take that as a sign that it mucked with the flow too much. I think a rewrite that gently introduces some of the terms is probably best.  In some cases it may be enough to link terms to articles that describe them (although this is not always enough).  Since George obviously feels strongly about the issue, perhaps he has some ideas about how to clarify without damaging paragraph flow? Jwrosenzweig 15:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, hold on, if you look at my change carefully you'll see that I have not removed any of the text. I have simply rearranged the sentences into two paragraphs rather than one. GeorgeStepanek\talk  21:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes I misread that diff! My sincere apologies, George -- I don't know exactly what happened, but you're entirely right.  I think I would still support a more gentle inclusion of the information, but certainly it's offering useful information right now, and the division into 2 paragraphs was probably wise.  My apologies once again, Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. - BanyanTree 05:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - The standard that all historic articles should reach. Djegan 21:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Outstanding. Two minor comments: (1)The opening page (folio 28r) of Matthew may stand as an example. (See illustration at right.) misses the illustration on the right, I think. (2) "under a sod": I am curious: What's a sod? Could this be linked to somewhere? Otherwise great work! -- Chris 73 Talk 04:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you kind words. As for your comments: 1) No I mean the other right. The text has been fixed to read "see ilustration at left". A sod is, well a sod. A link has been provided. Dsmdgold 20:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * One weak object - this is easily fixable; the introduction is a bit too short for an article of this length (only one paragraph); I would like to see a mention of the actual contents of the book inside the intro itself (i.e., copy a few lines from the "contents" section). The catalogue number at the end of the intro paragraph also seems a bit irrelevant. Otherwise great article and would support wholeheartedly. JuntungWu 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)