Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guilden Morden boar/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017.

Guilden Morden boar

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive yet concise article about an Anglo-Saxon boar that was once the crest for a helmet. The boar-crested helmet is a staple of contemporary imagery—think Beowulf or the Benty Grange helmet—yet could be seen today as an artistic invention if not for the three remaining examples. The Guilden Morden boar is small but significant, displayed in the same gallery of the British Museum as the Sutton Hoo treasures and exhibited internationally. This exhaustive article covers the boar from its discovery alongside "a doubled-up skeleton" in 1864 or 1865, to its reanalysis in 1977, to its typographic and artistic parallels. It includes all the relevant literature, which, when offline or otherwise inaccessible, I'm happy to help provide to anyone interested. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto
An interesting little article. A little on the short side, which is fine if it covers all the bases, but I wonder if anything more could be said about:
 * The manufacture of the crest. The article says it is cast bronze, but how was it cast?  The lost wax process?
 * Iconography. Why a boar?  Presumably boars are in some way iconographically significant, if they are known from multiple helmets.

The references I have spot-checked all check out. Prose is mostly fine, but I did notice "the boar is part of a number of boar-crested helmets" – in fact, it was part of only one! Perhaps something like: "the boar was probably once the crest of a helmet; a number of other Saxon boar-crested helmets are known from archaeological excavations and artistic depictions"? I also feel like "gains a further parallel in the Wollaston helmet" is fairly clunky, but I don't have any suggestion to improve it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts . Taking your comments in order:
 * Length: You're right that it's short, but it's a small object, and only has two articles devoted to it (Fordham 1904; Foster 1977a). Other articles discuss it in context (boar iconography and Beowulf, for example) along with other items. Especially with the addition of the "Iconography" section (see #3, below), I believe that the article covers all the bases.
 * Manufacture: That's a good question, but there is nothing in the literature. Fordham does not mention manufacture; Foster just says "cast" with some details punched in afterwards; and the BM website, along with the 2013 exhibition catalog, says the same as Foster (probably copying her) without elaboration. I also looked at the articles on the other boar-crested helmets (Benty Grange and Wollaston), which are not helpful. A detailed article (Bruce-Mitford 1974) on the Benty Grange helmet simply says the pieces were cast (again no elaboration), and the simpler Wollaston boar was manufactured differently, by forging a rod of iron.
 * Iconography: Good point. I've added an "Iconography" section which I believe addresses your question, and turned the Beowulf section into a subsection thereof.
 * Prose: Re-worded the section that contained those two phrases. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a minor copy-edit to the "Iconography" section. The article is looking good to me, though as FunkMonk notes below, a photograph would be nice if we could get a good one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even without the photograph, though, I am very happy to Support this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

my source spot-checks were for accuracy. I wasn't specifically looking for close paraphrasing, though I think if there was anything very egregious I would have noticed it. If no one else does any spot-checks before, I will do some more tonight thinking about paraphrasing as well as accuracy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, have done a little bit more source checking. No problems with close paraphrasing that I can see.  I wonder about ref 52 (Bruce-Mitford 1972, p.122) though, which I don't see supports anything (not that it's necessary, because other references to that claim do adequately support that the Beowulf quote in question does refer to the kind of boars found on the Sutton Hoo helmet). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued checking, . That Bruce-Mitford citation supports the idea that when boars (plural) in Beowulf are mentioned in the context of helmets, they refer to adornments such as the terminal eyebrow boars on the Sutton Hoo helmet. Bruce-Mitford quotes lines 303–304 (the same ones quoted in the footnote in the Guilden Morden boar article) right after noting that the helmet had boars' heads instead of a boar crest. It's somewhat redundant, since, as you mention, there are other citations that support the same concept, but Bruce-Mitford is an important writer on the Sutton Hoo helmet, and his acceptance of that interpretation carries some weight. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, re-reading this more closely, I see that this is actually fine.  I am happy that the sources do check out, both for accuracy and for avoiding close paraphrasing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Guilden_Morden_grave_goods_drawing.png: we're certain that the journal itself had no copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm at the library with an original copy of the journal now. The inside of the front cover states at the bottom that "All contributions to Medieval Archaeology are COPYRIGHT. Applications to reproduce them, in whole or in part, should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Secretary, Society for Medieval Archaeology, University College, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT." The journal also has a copyright page before the contents, which states "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology". (I'm happy to email you this if you would like, having just scanned all the front and back matter of the journal.)
 * I'm not sure what significance, if any, the above language has. Per the article, the drawing was "made between April 1882 and September 1883." Foster does not state who drew it, but realistically it could only have been Herbert Fordham (d. 1891); his son Herbert George Fordham (d. 1929) wrote about the boar in 1904, but professed to be unaware of various details that were mentioned in the drawing. He explicitly stated that "No further information as to ... the particular objects found is now, unfortunately available", yet had he drawn the drawing, he would have known about the bronze ring and amber bead found alongside the boar. But regardless, the father died in 1891 and the son in 1929, so any copyright based on life + 70 years has expired. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is rather the US tagging - the tag currently in use requires "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Is there a different tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to, which appears to be more explicit about the criteria needed for a foreign publication to achieve copyright protections in the United States. Medieval Archaeology was not registered in the United States (Copyright Entries), and so failed to comply with the necessary formalities (page 3 of the Hirtle chart). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion at the copyright help desk. Bottom line is that the 1977 UK publication did not comply with the formal requirements to establish US copyright, and so not only is the drawing PD is the UK, it is PD in the US. The previous tag appears to have been accurate, but I have updated it with a more succinct one:   . --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of the points raised in that discussion, but am unsure of the results; the new tag retains the "without copyright notice" verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Per the continued discussion at the copyright help desk, I have included a detailed explanation under "Permission" on the file page. It doesn't seem like there is a perfect template; the current one appears to be technically correct (defective notice=no notice, legally speaking), though I could switch to      if you prefer. The explanation under "Permission" also has the benefit of explaining the other possibility, i.e., that the drawing is considered "unpublished" (and thus PD) in the US. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon, first thing that comes to mind is; why don't we have a photo of this object? Seems to be on public display? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I look forward to your comments. At your prompting I've asked at the BM project page if a photograph might be possible. Including searches on Flikr, Google, and Bing, the only photographs I have seen of the boar are those taken by the BM (shown as an external link in the article) and a B&W photograph in a 1999 book. If the BM project page doesn't work I might email the author of the book and see if he has it in color and would be willing to release it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it will bear fruit! Seems odd no one hasn't just gone to that room and snapped a photo for Commons already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking throughout the article, it seems you extensively use direct quotes for pretty simple statements. This disrupts the flow, I think, any reason why this can't just be paraphrased in your own words throughout?
 * Just went through and paraphrased about half of them. If still feels too disruptive I can probably find a few more to get rid of. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes should be attributed in-text, which i don't think you want to do, so it is probably best to get rid of them all. There are a couple in the intro as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've removed many more, including those in the lead (sans Beowulf). The remaining are attributed by inline citations. Unless I'm missing something, that's acceptable per WP:Attribution: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable."
 * Looks much more self-contained now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "probably about 1864 or 1865," This quote seems especially unnecessary. It is just dates.
 * I've now paraphrased it. My thought behind that one was that quoting Fordham demonstrates that the uncertainty of the date stems back to the person most closely associated with the boar, but clearly it didn't have the desired effect.
 * Not when there is no in-text attribution, the reader has no idea who this is quoted from. You could also have said "according to X, it was found around Y Z." FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point . The uncertainty of Fordham's recollections is reflected in the block quotation a few lines later, so I'll let it lie at that.


 * "the son of Herbert, suggested that" I think this could end with a colon before the quote.
 * Done.


 * " although a date more specific than the 6th or 7th century AD has not been suggested for the Guilden Morden boar" Based on what? Also, the infobox only says c. 7th century AD...
 * Fixed the infobox. The only source that suggests a date is the BM website ("6thC-7thC"). I think it's probably just based on the conservative guess of a curator asked to suggest a date without any guidance in the literature.


 * "only five from the Anglo-Saxon period are capable of reconstruction" What is meant by "reconstructible"?
 * Well-preserved enough that the original form can be determined. I've clarified it in the article. An example of a helmet that is not reconstructable is the Tjele helmet fragment.


 * "sacred to the mother goddess" Anything that could be linked here?
 * The sources I have just say "mother goddess" or similar, probably taking their lead from Tacitus, who only says "They worship the mother of the gods" without naming her. Searching online was inconclusive; I'll try a book on the Celtic Gundestrup cauldron (will take a day or two to get), and see if it has anything.
 * Perhaps Mother goddess would be sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll update it with something more specific it/when possible.


 * You should state which languages the two Beowulf quotes are in.
 * Is it fine if i add this in either a footnote or by explaining in the text that Beowulf was originally written in Old English, or does it need to be in-text with both quotations?
 * What would be nicest for the reader is something like this, where each table has a "title" that states what the language is. So you would have one titled "Old English original", and the other titled "English translation", or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Added to the end of the block quotation. Because the second Old English quotation is only a sentence later, I haven't added a second mention, but will do so if you think it better.


 * "a doubled-up skeleton" Not sure what is meant by this.
 * I presume a skeleton in the fetal position (e.g., second photograph here), but neither the drawing nor Foster elaborate. If you like I could add a short footnote to that effect, but I have not done so lest I run afoul of speculation or OR.
 * This could be a good place to use in-text attribution (since there is ambiguity), by saying for example "a "doubled-up skeleton", according to X". FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the "doubled-up skeleton" quotation in the lead; where it remains in the body, it is attributed to the 1882–1883 drawing ("Underneath the images it is noted that the items were 'all found in a grave with a doubled-up skeleton'"), which I think does what you are asking. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "he Guilden Morden boar is a link between the mythical Anglo-Saxon warrior hero and reality" Only stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - everything nicely addressed, now I only hope you'll soon get a real photo of this object. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment from Brianboulton
I think the approximate age of the object needs to be in the lead, rather than just in the infobox. This is important basic data, and at present you have to read quite a way into the article before you find it in the Typology section. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.

Sources review

 * There are several citations to the work Beowulf. In what form was this source consulted? Did you go to the BM and view it there, or did you use some printed edition? If the latter, details should be given.
 * Added the Klaeber text, and indicated that it is the source of the Beowulf quotations.


 * One of the Beowulf citations supports the statement in the lead that boar-adorned helmets are mentioned in the work five times by providing the page references. This looks a little like OR.
 * It's not OR, and has been published some half-dozen times; Hatto, for example, says "In Beowulf there are six references to the boar as a symbol. ... Five of the six references concern the helmet," and Foster says "the literature contains numerous references to boars and to boar-capped helmets. Beowulf has five instances (Beowulf, 1968, pp 40, 63, 68, 72 and 94)." The purpose of the citations directly to the lines in question is to make it easier for any reader to find them. Foster's reference doesn't help unless someone has access to one particular in-copyright version of the poem, Hatto lists them in confusing order and translates only half of them, and others inexplicably state that there are five, and then only mention a few of them. It was confusing when I was going through the literature, and I figured that being explicit about what lines are pertinent would help others avoid similar confusion.
 * Copyright isn't an issue when citing text (otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite anything published in the last 70 years). So you should cite the Foster source, in addition to the work itself. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added another citation to the lead. Previously I think I misinterpreted your comment, thinking you were referring to the part in the "Boar-crests in Beowulf" section which supports the statement in the lead. That section has four citations ("... helmets with boar imagery are referenced five times.[7][8][39][40]"). My point about the source that Foster uses being copyrighted is only that it's substantially less versatile than the line numbers; armed with the lines, one may go to any out of copyright version on Google Books and read the relevant parts. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * One very small formatting point: in ref 9, p. should be pp.
 * Fixed.

Everything else looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback ! I have addressed all the issues you raise above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

 * Support - I've read through, nothing stands out as a clanger prose-wise. Hence all good on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Adityavagarwal

 * Strong support - Just two minor issues of dup links and ref ordering, which I have fixed. A very interesting article, and very well-written! Just one little thing I would ask is, why are we having so many citations in the lead? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! The citations in the lead are probably strictly speaking unnecessary, but I include them as a matter of preference. I'd rather err on the side of citing something than not citing it, and especially when things in the lead are stated in different ways later (or just in recognition of the fact that articles change over time), it makes clear what citation supports what fact. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, no issues in having citations in the lead, that is why I supported it and mentioned it as a minor thing. Just wondered about the reason. It is all cool! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

 * Great work all round. Just a few minor points:
 * In the lede, we do not mention the actual country where the object was found, instead resting on the assumption that the reader will be familiar with the term "Anglo-Saxon" and the location of "Cambridgeshire". Of course, readers can just click on the links, but that will then take them away from this article. I would suggest using something like "in a grave in Guilden Morden, a village in the eastern English county of Cambridgeshire". It just provides that extra level of precision which many international readers will appreciate (I found that the most useful strategy when putting together Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added.


 * There is a duplink to Anglo-Saxons in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * It is a shame that we do not have a photograph of the artefact itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an ongoing project. See discussion above, and request here.


 * "found by Herbert Fordham" - could we have a little further explanation of who he was? Just a few words should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added.


 * "Herbert George Fordham, the son of Herbert," - I think that it would be best to use the surname rather than the forename of the finder here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Was trying to avoid the inherent awkwardness of referring to two people with almost identical names, but think the new phrasing is better.


 * No need to have "— Herbert George Fordham" at the end of the quotation if we already state who provided it just before the quote appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * "at the Sutton Hoo Visitor Centre" - perhaps a link to Sutton Hoo here? And a statement that it is in Suffolk? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added mention of Suffolk. Sutton Hoo is linked two sentences earlier ("... objects such as the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial and the Lycurgus Cup.").


 * "as part of Between Myth and Reality" - it is not made clear what this actually was, so perhaps "as part of Between Myth and Reality temporary exhibition"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this not covered by the two references to the boar being exhibited? The article says that "the Guilden Morden boar has been exhibited both domestically and internationally" (emphasis added) and that it was "exhibited from 26 July to 16 October 2013 ... as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter" (emphasis added).
 * I see your point. I would probably still state "temporary exhibition" to make things 100% clear, but it isn't a key issue by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased the initial sentence to "the Guilden Morden boar has been shown in both domestic and international exhibitions", making clear (by changing the verb "exhibited" to the noun "exhibitions") that the displays in Britain and Germany were exhibitions. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter (Christianisation of Medieval Europe)" - same issue as above. Best to just make things crystal clear, particularly for those who are not native English speakers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Typology", we have "6th or 7th century AD" and then "sixth through eleventh centuries AD". There needs to be some standardisation here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Crested helmets were in use from the 6th century to the 11th; the crested helmet the boar adorned was from the 6th or 7th century. Rephrased slightly to make that clear.
 * Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough there; I mean that we use both textual and numerical names for the centuries; i.e. both "6th" and "sixth". It is that which needs to be standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, have now done so. There is still one mention of the "19th century" in note 1, but as it is part of a quotation I have left it as is.


 * "In Celtic times the boar..." - I really think that we need to be very careful here, particularly with wording like "In Celtic times..." I would scrap this sentence altogether, to be honest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say you would scrap this sentence, do you mean the entire part from "In Celtic times" to "with boar-crested helmets"? If so, why would you do so? it's purpose is to demonstrate the early use of, and reason behind, boar-crested helmets. Tacitus, the concept of a mother goddess, and the Gundestrup cauldron are generally invoked in any discussion of boar-crested helmets.
 * The thing that particularly irks me here is the wording "in Celtic times". In Britain at least, archaeologists have pretty much entirely jettisoned talk of a "Celtic period" with all its 19th century associations and prefer to speak of the Iron Age, Romano-British period, and early middle ages, in each of which linguistically Celtic populations could be found. I would suggest something like "It has been argued that among linguistically Celtic communities in Iron Age Europe, the boar was seen as sacred to a mother goddess figure". Ensure that it is presented as an argument rather than as fact, too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Celtic Gundestrup cauldron" - the ethno-cultural origins of the cauldron ae certainly debatable; it was found in (linguistically Germanic) Denmark and was possibly produced in Anatolia (as far as I understand). I think that you need better sourcing than Foster on this one. I appreciate that her BAR volume is a reliable source but anything to do with "Celtic" identity and culture is inevitably contested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The paraphrasing is my fault, not Foster's. She says "The great silver cauldron from Gundestrup, probably depicting Celtic ideology, though its place of manufacture is uncertain, provides further evidence of boar-crested helmets." (I had originally quoted the "probably depicting Celtic ideology" part, but removed it when attempting to remove the many quotations that were earlier in the article.) I'll spend a bit of time looking into this.
 * I would recommend just getting rid of the C-word from this sentence, and simply discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron without it; perhaps mention where it was found, in order that the reader may appreciate its pertinence to the Guilden Morden boar. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ages" - again, problematic wording. Perhaps "Iron Age and early middle ages"? Talk of a "Celtic age" has generally been expunged from British archaeology for quite some time now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to "the demise of Celtic culture and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons". The point of the sentence is less the particular time periods, and more the fact that two cultures to which the boar was important were separated by a significant amount of time.
 * The issue is that concepts of a "Celtic culture", like those of "Celtic people", remain very contested within archaeological scholarship. I think that the only place where the term "Celtic" is still being used completely un-problematically is when referencing the broad linguistic group (and perhaps when talking about post-18th century ethno-cultural and religious groups who very much self-identify as "Celtic"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Anglo-Saxon times," - I would really reword. Perhaps the "Anglo-Saxon period"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reworded.
 * Thanks very much for your careful read . I have incorporated many of your suggestions; specific responses with a few questions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Anglo-Saxon boar symbols "are latecomers in a procession led by La Tène prototypes in the fourth century BC, joined by Gaulish models in the first century BC, and reinforced by late Roman parade armor in the fourth century AD."" - perhaps better to paraphrase rather than going with a direct quotation here, because there is already a quote taking up much of the previous sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "according to the Roman historian Tacitus boar symbols were worn in battle to invoke her protection" - by whom? A lot of Tacitus' descriptions pertain to specific tribal or regional groups and it would be good to be specific on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * " stable of symbols" - is this the right term to use? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Stable" is being used for its more general meaning as "group" or "collection," which feels fitting especially when used in an animalistic context. But let me know if it reads awkwardly and I'll rephrase.


 * Thanks again for your comments . I have substantially rewritten the iconpgraphy section (and added an image of a wild boar, ). I believe it now addresses most of your concerns: among other changes the language is now less broad, talk of Celts is all but removed, and more details are given. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment:, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just that I would like to offer my support for its promotion. Well done, Usernameunique! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominators first FAC if promoted. Therefore, we would require spot checks of the sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing. I notice above that spot-checked some references. Could I clarify that these were checks for accurate usage and close paraphrasing? Also, I strongly agree with above that we should be avoiding "Celtic". Nor am I keen on Beowulf's description as "mythical" as there wasn't really much about him that was mythical. Also, never wanting to let a medieval expert go to waste, I wonder if or  have seen this? (If they don't get chance to respond, that does not have to hold up this nomination, by the way.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . You are correct that this is my first nomination. At your suggestion I have changed "mythical" to "legendary", to remove any supernatural connotations. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review etc. by Cas Liber

 * References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Earwigs copyvio good, with one text correctly quoted and attributed inflating the score.
 * FN 12 faithful to source
 * FN 1 (used 10 times) faithful to source
 * FN 4 (used 4 times) faithful to source

All in order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.