Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pioneer 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018.

Pioneer Helmet

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The boar-crested Pioneer helmet was made for battle. Utilitarian in design, it was discovered along with a pattern welded sword in the Anglo-Saxon grave of a man of about 25. Yet as plain as it is—compare it with the Coppergate helmet, which is almost identical in its underlying structure but much richer—it is both rare and significant. The helmet’s 1997 discovery marked only the fourth time an Anglo-Saxon helmet had been unearthed, and the boar atop its crest evokes the world of the epic Beowulf, a tale that lies in the ephemeral haze between fiction and reality.

This article is concise and complete. It covers the helmet from its discovery through its conservation and display, and contextualizes it with a discussion of its typology, and the boar’s iconography. All the known literature is covered: sometimes provided, kindly, by those who excavated and conserved the helmet. Twenty years after the helmet’s discovery, this article is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Dank
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your edits and support, —good points all around. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
Support, I came to make the usual list, but found only three so minor points that I don't care if you follow or not:
 * Thanks very much for reading through this and for your support, . Comments below. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In the caption for the Coppergate, I'd do without "exceptionally".
 * It says "extremely", not "exceptionally. Do you still suggest changing?
 * Sorry, I should not have written from memory ;) - yes, same, why not just "is similar"? For me, an image caption should be as much to the point as possible, but it's a matter of taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * "ritual killing" is normally identified with human sacrifice, but obviously means something else here.
 * It's also associated with objects, such as swords, which were bent to make them unusable prior to deposition. Here are some examples (haven't read the blog post, so no idea if its correct/reliable or not, but it has lots of good pictures). At a guess, it may have been a combination of ritual—the sword rendered dead with its owner—and practicality: don't go looting this grave, guys, its contents are worthless. I'll do some research on this and try to add a line explaining it.
 * , just letting you know that I've found a good overview article on the subject by Leslie Grinsell, and have added an explanatory line to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The image in the Beowulf section is in the way of displaying the poem exactly line by line. Could it be moved? That's all. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks fine on my screen; there are a few inches of white space between the English translation and the picture. On yours, does it push against the English translation, taking what should be one line, and making it display as two, or do something else?
 * On a wide screen, all seems fine, until you notice that in English, we have one line more. Can you try to match them exactly? Try to move your right side in and see what happens. I'd write more introduction, to make it fit with the it, or move it up, or make it smaller. But again, just my taste.
 * That's a byproduct of Heaney's translation—he gained a line here (Heaney line 1 is only half of Beowulf line 1), and then lost it somewhere later on.


 * Another point: perhaps note somewhere on the talk that parts (like the Beowulf) are "copied", even if it's your own. Doesn't hurt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Copied", as in from another article (here, Guilden Morden boar)? I think I can put that on the talk page. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * Any chance of a less shadowed main image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , the best way would probably be if someone in Leeds could take another picture. The Royal Armouries sent over a few beautiful and massive photos, but is unwilling to license them in any way. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

 * Two quotes lacking citations in the lead fill me with panic, but maybe that's my problem.
 * Good point. Cited the Beowulf quotation. The other ("crested helmet") is more a term of art than a quoted phrase, so I've left it without a citation.
 * I find the use of the past tense in the description section is a little jarring; has anyone else picked up on this?
 * It's used in the sense of how the helmet was made; particularly since half the helmet is now missing, present tense does not work for parts. Not opposed to reworking what can be reworked into present tense, however.
 * ".15 m (0.49 ft)" False precision. 0.5 ft! (Also, would "15 cm" be more natural?)
 * Done and done. The source says "0.15m", but since that's exactly 15cm, which sounds more natural, I've made the change.
 * "marks the grave as one of high social status" A high social status grave? Surely it marks it as a grave of a person with high social status?
 * But only the coolest graves can get into The Sepulchre on Friday nights... Changed to "marks the grave as one for a person of high social status."
 * I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the other artefacts found around the helmet? They'd be a great addition to the article.
 * Good thought. There are some photographs of the sword and hanging bowl, although none with an appropriate license. I'll email a few of the organizations with them and ask.
 * "the adhesive HMG" Wikilinks and/or spelling this out would definitely be useful, I feel
 * It's a brandname for an adhesive (source), standing for H Marcel Guest LTD. I could change to "the cellulose nitrate based adhesive HMG," or turn HMG adhesive into a brief stub (or both).
 * Update: changed to "These fragments were reassembled using the cellulose nitrate adhesive HMG;" HMG links to the new article HMG Heat and Waterproof Adhesive. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "the surviving cheek guard was reassembled from eighteen fragments alone" If I am understanding your meaning correctly, would "the surviving cheek guard, alone, was reassembled from eighteen fragments" be a little clearer?
 * Done.
 * "gapfilled and inpainted, and in the last step, the boar was affixed to the apex using epoxy" Jargon
 * Changed to "were then filled in and painted". Linked epoxy, which is a type of glue, and I think broadly recognizable.
 * "The helmet was unveiled to the public on 23 December 1997." Where? In what way?
 * Changed to "The helmet was placed on public display". I believe there was a press conference beforehand, but I don't know most of the details (including whether the helmet was actually displayed there).
 * What sort of company is Pioneer Aggregates UK Ltd?
 * It made construction aggregate. I thought the line "Excavations in the area had taken place for years on behalf of various aggregate companies before the land was exploited for gravel" took care of it, do you think I should add something specific to Pioneer Aggregates?
 * "Currently it is on display at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, West Yorkshire." I think Currently will quickly go out of date. Also, ref?
 * This would perhaps work for the ref, but it makes it sound as if it is a temporary exhibition. My understanding is that the helmet is on long term loan, and the Armouries indicated in an email last month that "the helmet is on display in our war gallery here in Leeds." The Armouries does not have a page about the helmet or associated grave goods, however, which is probably precisely because it is a loan item.
 * "and lamellenhelm (de)" I know others have complained about the use of this template in FA candidates, and I agree that it is a construction that seems to exist nowhere other than Wikipedia. Perhaps I could suggest (going against my usual support for redlinks) that you create a quick stub on the English Wikipedia for this style?
 * Will do. Done.
 * "Gaulish" Link?
 * Linked to Gauls.
 * "The boar nonetheless persisted in Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain," Maybe this is my mistake, but I initially misread this to mean that Germanic peoples in Britain kept a boar tradition alive during Roman rule, when (I now take it?) you mean that there was a continental tradition that persisted on the continent while the Romans were in Britain. Perhaps this could be tweaked slightly? Or maybe this is my problem.
 * Changed to "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition..."

I really enjoyed this article; I think the topic's great, and what could be better than finishing with an extract of Beowulf and the observation that literary analysis and archaeology can be mutually enlightening? Two closing thoughts: 1) Please check my edits. 2) may be able to offer some valuable insight, as she has brought topics related to English archaeology and the Anglo Saxons to FA status before. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review,, which as usual is thoughtful and thorough. I've incorporated most of your suggestions, and placed comments above. Will create a stub on lamellenhelm later today. Appreciate your edits; undid the two re: logical quotation, as in those instances the punctuation marks are in the original sources (the comma in the Beowulf line can actually be seen in the block quotation at the bottom). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Another quick thought: I wouldn't bother including the publishers of the journals, but if you are going to do so, please do so consistently! I'm also unclear on when you are and are not providing closed access icons. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also: You could probably be a little more consistent when it comes to the capitalisation of article/book titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , made capitalization consistent, and added publisher data (though still can't figure out who the English Studies publisher was in 1957). Closed access icons are provided when there is a link to a source but it has some sort of paywall (e.g., on jstor); the rule of thumb is if there is a link, there is an icon of some sort. On 's good advice I've gone through and differentiated between open access and free access. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from me; everything looks good. I'll be watching the page in case someone points out something I've missed, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
One tiny adjustment required: in ref 62, "p." should be "pp". Other than that, all sources appear to be in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the review, . --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.