Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lindow Man/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 SandyGeorgia 02:16, 16 July 2010.

Lindow Man

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When it was found, the body of Lindow Man caused a media sensation. It's a story of murder investigations, chance discoveries, and severed feet being thrown around like confetti. If confetti had toenails. The article details this, the context of the find, and its importance. There are plenty of unsolved questions surrounding Lindow Man, first and foremost is why did he die? He apparently suffered an elaborate death which may have been part of an Iron Age ritual, but it's difficult to be sure. Even dating the body is problematic. This nomination is related to WP:GLAM/BM and the article has had feedback from Jody Joy, Curator of the British and European Iron Age Collections at the British Museum, but I'd been toying with the idea of taking the article to FAC since 2008 and this provided some much needed impetus. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This article is eligible for the GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Media review: Four images.
 * File:Lindowman.jpg: Commons image of remains, used as main infobox image.
 * License: PD-user. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
 * Quality: Excellent.


 * File:Lindow Moss 2006.jpg: Commons image of discovery site.
 * License: CC-BY-SA-2.0. Verified.
 * Quality: Fine.


 * File:Lindow Man reconstructed face.jpg: Image of reconstruction of subject's head (fair use).
 * Usage: Good. Highly informative image of museum reconstruction, supporting and explicating article text.
 * Rationale: Fine.


 * File:Lindow Man 1.jpg: Commons image of remains.
 * License: CC-BY-SA-2.5. Supported by all circumstantial evidence.
 * Quality: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no issues with the images. Hekerui (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Just one substantive query, on a side issue:
 * "Her husband, Peter Reyn-Bardt, had boasted while in prison that he had killed his wife and buried her in the back garden of their bungalow, which was on the edge of the area of mossland where peat was being dug. The garden was examined but no body was recovered there. When Reyn-Bardt was confronted with the discovery of the skull from Lindow Moss, he confessed to the murder of his wife."
 * As he was not yet serving a prison sentence for having killed his wife, the first sentence in this passage needs a brief phrase to explain what he was doing in prison when he made his boast: e.g., "while in prison on another charge", "while in investigative custody".—DCGeist (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point and done. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: Meets all criteria. Sourcing is particularly strong. Excellent job.—DCGeist (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - after reading your fascinating nomination statement, I clicked on the article intending to skim it. I ended up reading the whole thing...! Good prose, well referenced, eminently readable. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Two tiny format points: for consistency, ref 13 should read "pp." And ref 36 should have a retrieval date. Otherwise, sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further on sources Since Brianboulton's original review of the sources, an external link has been converted into a reference. The source is reliable, RN-DS Partnership is run by Richard Neave and Denise Smith who used to work for the University of Manchester doing facial reconstructions. More detail can be found here. Nev1 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment . This is a well-written article on a fascinating topic, which has improved significantly since I last read it. I feel it now does a good job of balancing accuracy and readability. I have a few very minor comments.
 * In the lead, "naturally preserved" appears to contradict the later statement that the body has been freeze dried.
 * Could a stub article be started for Lindow III? If not there should probably be a redirect to the Discovery section of this article, even though the remains are not considered to be part of Lindow Man.
 * This might be more appropriate for the general article on bog bodies, but on doing some web-searching I found a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of exhibiting the body in public, particularly in context of the recent exhibition in Manchester, and this perhaps could be mentioned under conservation.
 * It's unclear why the material on facial reconstruction is in an external link. Now that the image has been reinstated, this should probably be mentioned in text/figure legend and the link incorporated into the references.
 * There is inconsistency between whether metric or imperial measurements are given as primary. Does this reflect the source documents? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, although the body was originally naturally preserved, it's now artificial. The simple solution is to remove "naturally" from the opening sentence.
 * From Bog Bodies: New Discoveries and New Perspectives (Turner & Scaife eds.), a collection of essays on the Lindow bog bodies and bog bodies in general, I'd say there's enough material available for an independent article on Lindow III. In fact the only one of the four that doesn't seem to merit an article is Lindow IV as the sources treat it as part of Lindow Man. In the mean time, I've created a redirect to Lindow Man.
 * The main sources didn't really mention the ethics of displaying human remains. The closest I got was a brief mention in The Grauniad about how the display in Manchester last year encouraged visitors to be more sensitive and remember that Lindow Man was once a living person. It's an issue related to bog bodies, but covers the conservation of human remains in general. I'm not sure whether to include it in this article, but there needs to be something about the issue on Wikipedia. There's no article on the conservation of human remains, although there may be a more appropriate article.
 * I've converted the external link into a reference.
 * Yes, the sources tend to use imperial units when talking about height and weight and metric when talking about distances. I've standardised the article so that it now uses imperial first. Also in the case of the weight, I've removed the equivalent in stone. I took the figures from Renfrew and Bahn, who claimed that 132 lbs was nearly 10 stone, even though it's closer to 9. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the ethics point, a quick websearch found several media articles (eg Culture24, which has a comment from a Man Mus curator; Guardian , which quotes Emma Restall Orr), and there was intermittent discussion on the Manchester Museum's blog for the exhibition . There's also been a conference at Manchester University on the subject, 'Respect for Ancient British Human Remains: Philosophy and Practice' (November 2006) with a papers by Melanie Giles from Univ Man on bog bodies  and Emma Restall Orr from Honouring the Ancient Dead . (The other papers are also online.) It might be more relevant to Lindow Man than to other bog bodies on public display because of the focus chosen by the latest Manchester exhibition, as well as the London–Manchester repatriation discussion, which is being linked with the repatriation of eg aborigine remains. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting finds. What do you think of this as a brief summary of the issue? Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) It should be recast to paraphrase the substance of the unnecessary quotation ("value human remains for the scientific information they contain"). There's no distinctive form of expression there and no content there that can't be readily stated in direct terms.
 * (2) The statement that Orr "question[s] whether the body should be displayed at all" implies that others have suggested it should be displayed in a different manner. Is that actually the case? If so, what is the alternative suggestion? Or should the "at all" be cut to eliminate that implication?—DCGeist (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked a bit more to make it tighter and stronger. Looks good to me in terms of the prose.—DCGeist (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wording looks fine and seems appropriate in terms of relative weight. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I have read through the article a few times and made some minor edits. It is well-written, informative and interesting, and IMO worthy of being a FA.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I won't give a "verdict", per my comments on other BM/GLAM prize eligible articles, but it reads very well & seems comprehensive. I got a bit confused in the paragraph starting "Lindow Man's official name is Lindow II ..." detailing the other bits coming up the "elevator". I think it was the initial listing followed by individual coverage; like no doubt those involved I had trouble working out which bit belonged to which body. A re-arrangement bringing the Lindow III etc names to the front of each bit would probably be clearer. At the end it is said to be "in the care of" the BM, which seems to imply it isn't their property, but it is, isn't it?  Maybe drop "the care of".  I have reduced over-categorization of this & most others in Category:Bog bodies, after adding that as a sub-cat to other categories. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed "care of" per your suggestion, but I'm not convinced about the third paragraph of the discovery section. It's made clear that Lindow I is Lindow Woman (explained in the background section), and when the discoveries of Lindow III and Lindow IV are detailed it's explained which they are. This builds on the earlier description at the start of the paragraph which I believe is necessary to briefly lay things out before an involved explanation. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all clear on a 2nd or 3rd reading, but I stumbled over it first time through. This bit is the main problem: "After the discovery of Lindow Man, there were no further archaeological excavations at Lindow Moss until 1987. A large piece of skin was found by workmen on the elevator on 6 February 1987. On this occasion, the police left the investigation to the archaeologists. Over 70 pieces were found, constituting Lindow III." - the identification should be much earlier. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think this excellent article more than meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Excellent article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for WP:WIAFA#3: File:Lindowman.jpg, as clarified by Jack1956, is a derivative of British Museum's copyrighted photo (and not to be used for commercial purposes). Free replacements are available in the forms of File:Lindow Man.jpg and File:Lindow Man 1.jpg. Oppose shall stand until material not compliant with policy is removed. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lindowman.jpg for further details. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With the image issue resolved, I throw my support in for this comprehensive article that details the discovery and significance of an artefact or human remains (also commented on in the article) and is pleasant to read. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed, per the discussion over the past two days at Commons, the photo must be removed from the article's lede and replaced with one of the two free images identified by Jappalang, the latter of which currently appears in the article's Conservation section. There might be a viable case for it as a fair-use image in the body of the article, but in fact I don't perceive that it reveals any significant detail of the remains that is not clearly visible in File:Lindow Man.jpg. It would certainly be appropriate to use both File:Lindow Man.jpg and File:Lindow Man 1.jpg in the article: the former is in substantially better focus, while the latter shows more of the remains.—DCGeist (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image and bumped up the one further down. I've gone for the one showing more of the body, although File:Lindow Man.jpg is sharper. I'm not too fussed either way about which ofMike Peel's images is used in the lead as they both do the job. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, because of two consistency issues mentioned in the last two bullet points Support. Otherwise good. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with this sentence in the lead: "It helped invigorate study of British bog bodies, which had previously been a neglected field in comparison to those found in the rest of Europe." Half way through the sentence we are talking about a field of study, but by the end we are talking about bodies. It doesn't scan.
 * The lead says he was "deposited into Lindow Moss, face down": I may have missed it, but i can't find the 'face down' bit in the body of the article text?
 * Under "Death", there appears to be an inconsistency in the discussion. We are told that "the blow on top of the head ...was caused by a relatively blunt object...Swelling along the edges of the wound indicated Lindow Man had lived after being struck." But in the next para we have "In the case of some injuries, such as the laceration on the back of the skull, it is not possible to confirm whether they took place before or after death due to the body's state of decay." (emphasis added) My reading is that these cannot both be correct.
 * "The accepted date range for Lindow Man is 2 BC to 119 AD" That may be so, but is a very strange conclusion to a section in which we have talked about dates ranging over hundreds of years. This appears to be bogus precision, possibly through a misleading interpretation of standard error ranges for radiocarbon dates. It also appears to contradict the earlier passage in the para: "Lindow Man himself has a different date, between about 20 AD and 90 AD." This needs sorting out.


 * I thought it was clear that the field of study (ie: the study of British bog bodies) was neglected compared to the study of bog bodies in the rest of Europe, however I have changed the sentence so it is simpler.
 * Fair point, now added.
 * I'm not seeing the inconsistency. The article says "The injuries included a V-shaped, 3.5-centimetre (1.4 in) cut on top of his head; a possible laceration at the back of the head.... etc". In short, the article makes explains that there may have been two injuries to the head.
 * My mistake, i missed the distinction. You are correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of that paragraph is to explain the main problems with the dating, so I don't think it is at all incongruous to say "samples from the body and surrounding peat have produced dates spanning a 900-year period" and then to narrow it down and explain how this has been done. If 2BC to 119AD seems like bogus precision, you'll have to take it up with the experts as there's no room for interpretation on my part there. Both Buckland and Joy gives that range. Buckland 1995, 47: "The dating problem has only been partly resolved by the larger number of additional dates ... and a date range at least for Lindow II, of 2 BC–AD 119 ... appears confirmed". Joy 2009, 23: "further testing and reconciliation of existing dates shows that Lindow Man died some time in the first century AD (2 BC–AD 119)". Hopefully this edit clears things up. Although the British Museum website does give 20 to 90 AD as the range, this is not reflected in either Buckland or Joy, and while 2BC to 119AD has cropped up several times, the BM website is the only place I recall seeing 20 to 90; as such I've removed it in light of better sources. It's possible the British Museum was using the C14 dates to one standard deviation of accuracy (68%) and the other sources two (95%), although why this would be has me stumped. Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the "collection database" only goes as far as "Romano-British (?); Iron Age (?)"; it's the "highlights" that is more precise. Both the BM objects I've been editing most recently, Royal Gold Cup and Holy Thorn Reliquary had different and entirely non-overlapping date ranges given on these different parts of the BM site for each object (likely to change as I pointed them out), so I'd stick with the recent books unless you get an explanation. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both these examples have now been altered by BM - I'd point out the issue here to the curator also. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All my queries have been addressed. Very prompt work, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.