Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emesa helmet/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019.

Emesa helmet

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Were it not displayed in Syria, let alone hidden in an undisclosed location, the Emesa helmet would be a much more famous archaeological treasure. This rich helmet is crafted so finely as to depict its owner’s face; it is so fine, in fact, that it is unlikely its owner would have risked damage to it for anything other than combat. Between the endpoints of its tumultuous modern history—dug from the earth by looters, only to be placed back underground to protect it from them—the helmet has gained some international attention, but remains an overlooked gem.

This article is concise and comprehensive. It uses all relevant literature, much of it relatively obscure. Already in good shape when it passed its good article review in February, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Just a few things
 * " an acanthus scroll" I've run into acanthus wreaths now and then but what is such a scroll? Made of or depicting?
 * Depicting. The sources don't go into depth on the scroll other than to say it resembles acanthus decorations on Syrian columns. Linked scroll to scroll (art) ("Although forms are often based on real plants, especially the acanthus ... [image caption:] Late Anglo-Saxon scrolls in a Beatus initial, drawing on classical acanthus scrolls"). I think the only publicly available images of the back of the helmet are copyrighted black and white photographs from Seyrig 1952b; I'll check the sources when I'm back home in a few days and perhaps add one as a fair-use photo.
 * Yes, the acanthus scroll was one of the most common motifs in Roman art - the many Commons files with the term in the title include this and this for example. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The helmet was then secured for the state collection by Emir Djaafar Abdel Kader, then curator of the National Museum of Damascus.[14]" I might cut "then". I think it is understood that he does not still hold the office.
 * Done.
 * You mention the several unsuccessful restoration attempts twice in as many paragraphs.
 * Largely removed the first. What remains is there to preserve the chronological treatment of that section.
 * "burnt rust" Isn't rust itself the product of oxidation? Can you further burn it?
 * Good catch, changed to "blackened." Here's what the source says: "The silver was now darkened, partly by the burning of the stopping of rust and wax that had been used in a previous restoration to fill the cracks and partly by the blackening of residual rust that remained attached to it. The rust was removed by brushing with 9 per cent oxalic acid."
 * "or manufactured in Syria to the likeness of helmets seen during Roman tournaments.[29][34][11] " are you doing refs in numerical order?
 * More by chronology/importance. There are a number of these in "Function," where Seyrig 1952a is cited before Seyrig 1952b.
 * Sources
 * Martin-Clarke. Is an ISBN or OCLC available? Ditto Plenderleith?
 * Both are too old for an ISBN, but I added an OCLC for Martin-Clarke (and an ISSN for Bruce-Mitford). Plenderleith already has a link to the book, and I typically only include an OCLC if there's no other identifying information or online copy, since an OCLC is really just a way to find a library with a particular book.
 * Otherwise everything, including the sources, looks to be in good order.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've added a photograph of a neck guard and expanded the description section with a new source, which I believe addressed your remaining point above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support all looks good. Thanks for the ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack
Nice little article.
 * It has been exhibited internationally, although as of 2017, due to the Syrian Civil War, the more valuable items owned by the National Museum are hidden in underground storage. – Maybe add "including the helmet" for extra clarity in the lead.
 * The sources about the museum don't explicitly mention the helmet, hence the article not making this link explicit. The museum appears to have reopened in stages—articles from a few months ago speak about it reopening more fully. There's a decent (but by no means absolute) chance the helmet was placed back on display within the last few months, but I would be quite surprised if it were one of the objects exhibited in 2017.


 * modern-day city of Homs in 1936; I would add Syria here, it can't be expected that all readers know where Homs is located.
 * Changed to "Confiscated by Syrian police soon after looters discovered it amidst a complex of tombs in the modern-day city of Homs in 1936"


 * The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa, and, considering its richness, – reads like "its" would refer to the helmet, but instead it seems to refer to the tomb?
 * Rephrased: "considering the lavishness of the silver and gold design"


 * notch was carved into each of the central holes to increase the afforded vision. – I assume the "central holes" are simply the eyes? Maybe state for clarity.
 * Rephrased: "Holes are drilled between the lips and as nostrils; the eyes each have a narrow slit, with three holes in a trefoil design, two round holes outside and a heart-shaped hole in the middle, underneath each eye to allow for a greater range of vision. These apparently were not enough, for a small and rudimentary notch was carved into each of the heart-shaped holes to increase the wearer's vision."


 * Description is rather short while the restoration part is more detailed, but I guess that is owing to the sources. I was wondering about the neck guard (is there an article/glossary to link it, btw?): Was this a separate piece or an extension of the top piece?
 * Gorget
 * I've substantially expanded this section based on another source (Seyrig 1952c). I've clarified that the functional (iron) neck guard was part of the head piece, but that the decorative (silver) part was placed on top., thanks for the gorget suggestion. They seem to be more about the front of the neck, however, than the back of the neck. Interesting point though, I'd never thought how a neck guard could equally mean protection for the front of the neck. Neck guard, incidentally, is about ice hockey equipment.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your review. I've responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot about this one. Thanks for the fixes, I'm supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * Interesting as always, will comment soon. I suspect would be interested in reading this one. FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks FunkMonk, appreciate it. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, . Just waiting to receive a copy of this article for your point about context of Emesa/Homs—hope to have it in a day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, does it exist yet, though? That page says "Full text document will be published online on December 2019." FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was published in print in 2017, and I got a scan from my library. (Jstor doesn’t even have it yet, probably the journal believing that they preserve their subscriber base if their articles wait two years before being placed online.) Based on the article, I’ve added this line: "Known as Emesa at the turn of the millennium, the city was at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire, and ruled by a client kingdom of the Romans." —Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Roman cavalry should be linked.
 * Linked in "Function": "Although classified as a cavalry sports helmet..."
 * Should also be linked in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "and and back" Looks like a mistake.
 * Fixed.


 * "three holes underneath each eye-slit allow for a greater range of vision" Why present tense? The succeeding sentence which talks about its use it past tense.
 * I've changed this section to be almost entirely in the present tense (except when discussing how a hasty modification was made to the eye holes). With old helmets there's a bit of a balancing act between describing what remains and what once was; the Benty Grange helmet's horn plates could hardly be described in the present tense, for example. It's easier with this helmet, which is in remarkable shape all things considered.


 * "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" I actually thought this referred to the bodies of the looters, perhaps specify "bodies in the tomb"?
 * Changed to "the burial shroud of one of the bodies," which I think makes clear that the body was buried.


 * "underwent a number of unsuccessful restorations" In Syria?
 * Added information about the first restoration, in Paris. There was probably at least one more restoration, since the Kansas City Times article states that "After several failures at restoration, it was taken to the British Museum" (emphasis added), but I haven't found a source that says anything more specific.


 * Seems you could link Royal family of Emesa both in the intro and article body.
 * It's already linked at "Digging near the former site of a monument to Sampsigeramus," and I've added it to the lead at "The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa".


 * I think you could make it clearer what Emesa was.
 * Do you mean "a previous name for the Syrian city Homs," or do you mean historical and contextual information about Emesa?
 * Both, but last part doesn't have to be so detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you mention bodies in the tomb, is it known which the helmet belonged to?
 * Do you mean which person?
 * Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "The acanthus scroll ornamentation seen on the neck guard recalls that used on Syrian temples" Do we have a picture of one that could be shown?
 * Added a fair-use photograph of the neck guard, showing the acanthus design.


 * I wonder if there would be Arabic sources that give some more context. Again, perhaps knows.
 * I will try to review it soon. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good to me now, the only addition I can think of is if there is something relevant in Arabic sources. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Another fine piece on an interesting object. Very well written, with a good flow. A few minor suggestions for consideration, none of which stand in the way of my Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and comments, . I've responded to all your points, adopting most of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "covered in silver and molded into an individualised portrait of a face" - Tim's really your man, but if we're using BrEng, and the inline header says we are, isn't this "moulded"?
 * Good catch, changed.
 * "considering its richness, may have belonged to a member of the élite" - considering its richness and cost, could it have belonged to anyone but a member of the élite? I appreciate we don't know, but I'd suggest "would have".
 * Changed to "likely belonged." Perhaps it's overly cautious, but I'm hesitant to speak in certainties about inferences.
 * Minor point and sorry for not catching it but I agree with SO re. the need/lack of need for an accent on elite in BrEng. KJP1 (talk)
 * Description
 * "Around the sides runs a diadem in the image of a laurel wreath" - link diadem?
 * Done.
 * "Other features—the eyes and eyebrows, and the chin—are more conventional. These features suggest..." - Isn't it actually the distinctive features, mentioned earlier, that suggest....? Perhaps, "The distinguishing features suggest..." or something similar, "particular", "distinctive"?
 * Good point, changed to "The distinctive features..."
 * Function
 * "in order to withstand the rigors of ceremony unscathed" - the rigours (BrEng) of ceremony don't sound very rigorous to me. "rigours of contest"?
 * Done and done.
 * "Tournament helmets were robust and manufactured without finesse" - not sure about this. Does it mean they were made in a "crude/basic/work-a-day" way or does it mean they were made without "decoration/elaboration"?
 * It means they less delicately ornamented. Much as the iron core of this helmet would protect its wearer, its with thin silver and gilt exterior would be easily marred if hit. Less so with a bronze piece such as the Ribchester helmet.
 * Discovery
 * "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" - not sure what the "itself" is doing there?
 * It was because two sentences earlier, it says "The helmet was discovered". Changed to "Their looting was uncovered".
 * Restoration
 * "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith" - do we need a little explanation as to who he was/why he, rather than Maryon, was writing about the restoration? Was he a colleague/collaborator?
 * Done: "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith, keeper of the museum's research laboratory."
 * "cracks that had been filled in by a dark stopping substance" - what is a "stopping" substance? An adhesive/a filler?
 * Probably a filler. The source just says "the major cracks had been filled with a dark stopping material in an effort to reinforce the silver".
 * alt text
 * I'm no expert but I'm not sure the alt text for the two images would be that helpful for a VI reader. They describe what it is, "a colour photo", but not what it shows- "A helmet with a silver face mask and an iron headpiece. The headpiece is decorated and has a central hinge holding the facemask." That said, your very detailed description in the text may mean this isn't an issue.
 * Can't argue with you there, especially for the other photographs (Nijmegen helmet, other grave goods). I've added more to them.

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage
Fascinating article about a really distinctive artifact I was totally unfamiliar with. However, there are some prose segments that I'm not at all certain meet the FA standard, and a cursory check for sourcing comprehensiveness suggested a couple further questions.
 * You have "élite" in the lede, complete with accent aigu. At least in American English, "the elite" is well-established without diacritics. I'm unaware if British English holds otherwise, but to my eye, this is hypercorrection. "Richness" also reads awkwardly there for me. Although I'm aware that it can be used to mean "the result of being rich", I think it's more commonly used as "the state of being rich". For example, I would write that crown jewels contribute to the "richness of kings", but I wouldn't describe the "richness" of the jewelry pieces themselves.
 * British English is the same. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Link diadem?
 * Done.


 * I might retitle the Discovery section, perhaps to "Discovery and Display", as a substantial part of the section covers museum ownership after its discovery?
 * I'd prefer to keep the current title, out of a desire for both consistency with other helmet articles (e.g., Benty Grange helmet, Pioneer helmet, and Shorwell helmet) and simplicity.
 * Sounds good then. Far be it from me to interfere with well-established sectioning precedent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...from some good feedback below, we now have both a "Discovery" and a "Display" section.


 * "extricated the objects": No "objects" have been mentioned in this section, but the use of the specific article here implies a reference to previously-discussed material. Also, "extricate" typically implies freeing something with difficulty, and may not be the verb you're looking for.
 * Changed "extricated" to "removed", and expanded the section significantly so that it now encompasses the other objects.


 * The next sentence also needs some work. As written, the "small golden plaques" covered the body, not the shroud, which probably isn't what was intended. "Shed onto the earth" is unnecessarily poetic.
 * "Shedding" is a technical rather than poetic term, I would have thought. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not qualified to make expert pronouncements regarding the field of archaeology, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it's certainly not being used a technical term so far as I can quickly determine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to "flaked." It's not a big deal either way, and it isn't being used as technical term: the source (which is more poetic than me) just says "One circumstance, however, deprived them of the fruit of their efforts. Working in the night they came upon a grave whose occupant had been wrapped in a garment studded with small golden plaques. The fabric had decayed, thus setting loose the plaques and letting them mingle with the earth that filled the tomb."
 * This sentence still reads rather oddly to my ear. I don't usually like to recommend specific wordings at FAC, but perhaps something like:"Their looting was uncovered because the burial shroud of one of the bodies was covered with small golden plaques that flaked off when disturbed."? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Played with the wording again, but feel free to have a go at it if you can think of something better.


 * I might reorder the parts of the museum history, as they're currently achronological, with the Damascus museum reopening introduced before the Syria: Land of Civilizations exhibition. Also, since the helmet started out in the National Museum, it seems a little awkward to say that it is "now" in that collection (implying that's a new state of being); I might instead note that it "returned" there after restoration, or something along those lines.
 * Done.


 * Not to dig on my local newspaper's reportage, but is a Kansas City Times human-interest article the best quality source for the helmet's restoration history?
 * The main source for the restoration is Plenderleith 1956. The Kansas City Times piece is used for two discrete facts: that Herbert Maryon carried out the British Museum restoration, and that there were multiple restorations before the helmet was taken to the BM.
 * Sure. Just seemed weird to have to go to a Kansas paper, when there's no obvious connection. But whatever, it's a reliable source, it has useful information. All is good there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but it's the only source that I could find for those two facts.


 * Seyrig suggested that there was originally attached fabric. Is it worth mentioning further scholarly opinions on the type of non-metallic ornamentation that may have been associated with helmets of this type? A possible place to start might be: In general, I think this is the highest-quality source you've overlooked.
 * I added Bartman 2005 on this and another point (laurel wreath as a symbol of victory), although I don't think it adds that much to the discussion of the Emesa helmet. The article is largely about ceremonial helmets, and while this one is related to those, it is an outlier. Moreover, her typology doesn't really add anything to the more detailed one by Robinson.


 * Are comparisons to any other pieces warranted in the context of the Typology section? There's a suggestion that the Emesa helmet is stylistically related to a helmet from Plovdiv, made in:
 * The Plovdiv helmet: another underappreciated helmet, that has quite a history and deserves its own article. I've held off to this point because the sources (see footnote 12 of the article you mentioned) are primarily in Bulgarian and German. I've requested the German sources (unlike the Bulgarian sources, the postdate the publication of the Emesa helmet) from my library and should have them in a day or two (I'll read Bartman 2005 in that time too). I think you're right that it's stylistically the most similar to the Emesa example, but I'm not sure how much the sources will go into it, as it's also an underpublished example.


 * I ran across a single source claiming that the Emesa helmet may have actually been a funerary mask. However, despite clearly referring to the same mask based on sources cited, it claimed the mask was gold rather than silver (I guess that gilt was really important to the authors?). Simply on that grounds, I'm willing to concede that it can be safely discarded. But if you'd like to look further:
 * That's a related find, found in the same complex. See here and here.
 * And that right there is why I don't write archaeology articles! Out of curiosity, though, is that other piece (and perhaps others?) related enough to warrant a brief mention in this article in the context of, broadly, "other stuff from the same place"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. I've added some more information about the excavation and the finds from tomb 1 (where the helmet was found), as well as two photographs of other finds.


 * Any idea if the National Museum itself has any commentary on the piece? Their website is entirely in Arabic, and I'm entirely illiterate in Arabic, so I'm afraid I'm no help there.
 * The helmet is shown on their website, but with probably incorrect information (Per Google Translate: Bronze mask of Homs 1. Bronze mask dating back to the first century AD, found in the city of Homs, probably used to cover the dead face.) It's possible there is more information elsewhere on the site., is there a chance that you would be able to quickly search the website? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have entered keywords in Arabic in the museum's search engine and found nothing. The google translation is more or less correct. The website does not have pages dedicated to particular pieces sadly and I dont expect to find any.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm surprised, but had to ask. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking,.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , good to have you editing again, and thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think I've responded to everything above, with the most significant change being an expansion of the "Discovery" section. I may also add a few lines elsewhere in the next few days, once I take a look at the article you mentioned, and the literature on the Plovdiv helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. It's good to be back to editing. Especially when that means I can help improve interesting articles like this one, which I think is in quite a bit better state than it was just a couple of days ago. One prose question based on the updated content. Is there a reason to prefer "oxidisation" over the rather more common "oxidation"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is much improved from when I originally looked over it. I think there's probably still a little room for development (especially regarding the Plovdiv helmet), but an article needn't be "done" to meet the featured article criteria, and so I'm happy to officially support. I will note one quibble; at the time of this comment, the last two paragraphs in §Description both start with "The face mask". That probably warrants tweaking, but I'm not going to without support for one easily remedied duplicative phrase. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments,, and now for your support. Added a few more comments above—largely about wording—and fixed the double "a face mask." Getting the literature on the Plovdiv helmet is taking longer than anticipated, but whenever I end up with it, I'll add something to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I've really enjoyed your previous helmet articles.
 * What does "is made in one piece" mean?
 * Changed to "made of one piece of iron and attached decorations."


 * "Known as Emesa at the turn of the millennium" It's not immediately clear which millennium you're talking about
 * Any suggestions on how to reword? It refers to the time when BC rolled over to become AD, which I think can be inferred by the fact that the helmet is dated in the first sentence of the lead to "the early first century AD." The reason for using the somewhat vague language of "the turn of the millennium" is to avoid trying to give a date to when the words "Emesa" and "Homs" entered into (and in the former case, departed from) use. (A similar point, with a similar response, was made here about the Gundestrup cauldron.)
 * How about something like "At the start of the first century AD"? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "and ruled by a client kingdom of the Romans." Which? (Or is that a silly question?)
 * Changed to "and ruled by the Emesene dynasty, a client kingdom of the Romans"


 * "removed the objects" What objects?
 * Changed to "removed the grave goods."


 * "even as objects appeared on the market advertised as coming from the tombs of Emesa, false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated ancient objects" Is this missing a word or two? I'm struggling to follow
 * Yep. Added a word (in bold above), is that clear now?
 * Yes, clearer. It's still a really tricky sentence, though. "false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated objects" is a description of some noun, but it doesn't apply to the subject of the previous clause - or, indeed, any noun in the previous clause. The "stories" are the "adverts about the objects", but you don't use the word "adverts", you talk of how the objects were "advertised". I think to make it work you would have to say something like "even as objects appeared on the market with claims that they had come from the tombs of Emesa. These claims were false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated ancient objects." Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Toyed with it some more, so hopefully it's within the bounds of proper grammar now.


 * "which was then backfilled flush with the level of the surface" This strikes me as jargon. I've read the definition of "backfill", but I still don't know what "backfilled flush" means.
 * Changed to "backfilled to surface level." It just means that a hole was dug in the earth, and then the hole was refilled so it looked as if the ground had not been disturbed. Although "backfill" is frequently used in an archaeological context, it also has a general meaning (see Wiktionary definition), and I don't think is terribly jargony.
 * Yes, apologies. I don't mind the word "backfill", I just couldn't understand what "backfilled flush" meant. I'm happy with the new wording. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "identical to those from tomb 11 which led to the tombs' discovery" I don't follow
 * Deleted everything after "tomb 11", and changed a sentence above to "Their looting was uncovered due to small golden plaques that adorned the burial shroud of the body in tomb 11, and that flaked onto the earth when disturbed." I think this makes the link explicit.


 * The final paragraph before the "restoration" section feels a bit out of place. I wonder if it would be worth reworking the section to be more chronological; you could then have a section on the discovery, and a section on display and restoration? You could even have "display" as its own section. Just a thought.
 * Good point. I've turned this paragraph into a standalone "Discovery" subsection after "Restoration."

Other than that, please double-check my edits. I'm struck that the bulk of your sources are very old, but I suspect that this reflects the scholarship on the object? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , with apologies for the delay in responding in full, thanks again for offering comments and a review. Responses are above. Regarding the date of the sources, this indeed is a reflection of the scholarship. This would seem to be proven by the Syria: Land of Civilizations 1999 exhibition catalogue. Though it lists literature for the items, for the helmet it only lists Seyrig 1952b, and a 1959 article by Seyrig about Emesa. The helmet, which seems to have been a centerpiece of the exhibition, is featured on the cover; it seems likely that if there were more recent literature on the helmet, it would have been listed in the catalogue. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Leaning support. "Leaning" as time constraints have prevented me looking as closely as I might like! I do think the "false stories" sentence could be clearer, though; I've left a few replies above. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, . I've responded to, and attempted to adopt, your suggestions above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * All images are appropriately licensed.
 * Is there a map available showing the town under its older name?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review, . Do you mean a map of Syria or the Middle East with a dot labeled "Emesa," or a street-grid type map of the town as it appeared 2,000 years ago? Also, just a heads up that I've added one more image, in the "Restoration" section. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I think that a grid-type map of the city would be really cool, I think that a larger-scale map showing where the city is would be useful. But that's a recommendation, not a requirement. I'll check out the additional image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The new image is properly licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One possibility is the main image from the Roman Empire article, which shows Emesa in perspective, though it doesn't look great as a thumbnail. I'll keep my eye out for something better—I agree that a grid of the ancient city would be great. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod

 * Lead: "the latter of which is covered in silver and moulded into an individualised portrait of a face" ?? made of silver, or silver-plated? Was it "moulded" after making? Later, in "description": "The face mask is made of iron, and covered with a sheet of silver" - ok but how "covered" & attached?
 * It's covered with a separate sheet of silver. I've clarified this in the lead ("It consists of an iron head piece and face mask, the latter of which is covered in a sheet of silver"), and added a bit of language about how it was held on to "Description" ("The mask is approximately 2 millimetres thick, of which the silver, which is folded around both the edges and each hole to hold it to the iron, accounts for between .25 and .5 millimetres.") Other than that, there's not much about how the helmet was made, shaped, or covered (in contrast to others, e.g., the Witcham Gravel helmet, where the literature reverse engineers the process of production).
 * Changed to "covered in silver and presents the individualised portrait of a face"; there's nothing that says how the iron (or silver) was shaped.


 * "and would be fastened closed with straps" - reads oddly. drop one?
 * Drop one what?
 * one of fastened or closed Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dropped the closed. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "and shows the rusted impression of what once was a woven and likely colourful fabric" - where did this go? hanging loose?
 * You mean what happened to the fabric? I assume it decayed, though this isn't expressly stated.
 * No, I mean where did it hang and attach. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not said in the literature. Presumably it's hard to determine due to the decay, just as crests are frequently speculative (see again the Witcham Gravel helmet, and also the Benty Grange helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, didn't get back to this, but I would like a response on the points above. The article left me unclear what the make-up/technique of the face piece was. Johnbod (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . I've replied and made changes in response to the first comment, and asked for clarification on the others. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, some more:
 * "The relative simplicity and inferiority of artisanship expressed by the crest and rosette—unlike with the diadem, for example, the background of the rosette was not carefully punched down, but was flattened with a tubular instrument and now presents as a series of rings—suggests repairs made locally,[10] away from the luxury workshops of Antioch." - too long a wait for the verb ("suggests") - should be re-arranged.
 * Reordered.


 * I'd add a phrase to the lead emphasizing how thorough & invasive the BM restoration was - not really coming through at present.
 * Changed to "thoroughly restored." Good point—it would be interesting to know how it would be restored today, given the emphasis on reversibility.


 * I'd move the last photo up a tad - form me it overlaps the notes. We shouldn't make a fetish of starting images within the most relevant section.
 * I've decreased the size, which somewhat ameliorates the overlapping. I'm hesitant to move it; absent a complete reshuffle of the images, the only logical place for it to go would be at "Display," where I think it would seem a bit too out of place.

Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * ok, Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've added another photograph, so played with the images a bit more. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Coord notes
I'd like to think we can wrap this up shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Usernameunique, can you respond to Josh's, Sturm's and Johnbod's queries?
 * Johnbod, did you still want to add anything?
 * Thanks for checking in, . I think we're about ready to go on this. There are two minor points I'm keeping in mind for later—to look for a better map than the one above, and to add a line on the Plovdiv helmet when I can get the literature—but other than that I think we've covered all the bases. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I did notice during my spotcheck of prose that you may be mixing AmEng and BritEng, i.e. I saw "colourful", but also "labeled" -- won't hold up promotion over it but could you pls check over the article and reconcile? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

 * Support very nice. Well put together and very readable and informative. I've made a couple of minor tweaks (per the MoS); I know little about such artefacts, so (per my cop out) my review is on prose and understandability, rather than technical coverage. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and support, ! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.