Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)/archive1

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (not to be confused with the Sutton Hoo helmet) is a major work by the minor artist Rick Kirby. Reflecting the fragmentary nature of the helmet on which it is based, it nevertheless retains the imposing, form-based characteristics of Kirby's oeuvre. The sculpture was unveiled by Seamus Heaney in 2002, and greets the thousands of visitors who visit Sutton Hoo each year.

I believe this short article meets the featured article criteria. I have scoured for every available source (including unanswered emails to Kirby and the National Trust), and am confident that it is comprehensive. At the same time, it was thoroughly reviewed last year by, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil
Generally this is fine as it goes - but its very slight, and rather uninforming. I get the lack of available sources and stuff, but it strikes me as more DYK than fac - eg does Kirby really have "major works"? Dunno, and anyway, his version adds nothing new. Also, not sure that Axle Arts [@axle_arts] is a reliable source. I'm sort of verging on a principled oppose. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look, . I’m happy to make changes in accordance with any suggestions. Axle Arts could be removed as a source, for instance; it supports only the minor point that the maquette for this sculpture was offered for sale in 2005 for £9,600. The source is probably reliable on this point—just as citing to an auction house for a sales price would be reliable—but it is hardly a major point of the article. As for DYK vs. FA, the notability standard is the same for both, so I don’t think that should be a problem. This article is certainly short, but there is precedent for that, and I have taken a close look at the featured article criteria, and believe that this article meets them. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of work since I last read it, and while have "sort of" kept up during the back and fourth below during last few days, to say I am no longer concerned about length in this case- it is clear that an exhaustive search has been conducted and the page as it stands represents the extent of the published sources. Will have an other read through shortly. Ceoil  (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Going to call this as a Support, with some cmts;
 * it takes as its inspiration the fragmentary appearance of the reconstructed helmet - drop "it takes as its", and maybe inspired by the fragmentary remains or some such
 * Changed to "it is inspired by the".
 *  mild steel plates that are coloured red - how was it made red
 * I'm not sure, the source just says "Small mild steel plates, coloured red". Based on an email exchange I had with that author, my guess is he just gleaned that visually when he visited the site.
 * giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact - don't like "giving him" - "as it allows a sense of scale...."
 * Changed to "allowing the sense".
 * [2] The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly, if not uniquely, dubbed "Britain's Tutankhamun", and the finds reshaped views of what was then termed the Dark Ages - not sure if it should be "find" or "finds". Also "dubbed" is a dreadful word.
 * You're right, I think either would work here. I used "finds" because I was thinking of the varied artefacts and the skill that went into manufacturing them (and the trade routes evinced by them), but "find" would be appropriate also, considering the holistic scale of the burial. Dubbed is pretty dreadful as you say—and feel free to change it—though its bluntness is being used partly because "Britain's Tutankhamun" is bit of an unthoughtful term by the press, used also for the Staffordshire Hoard (link), the Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial (link), and undoubtedly others throughout the decades.
 * Thinking..."dubbed" could be "became know as". "was quickly" is very imprecise, if you could clarify. Ceoil  (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we even mentioning the Dark Ages; I doubt many RS use that term.
 * The point is historiograpic, i.e., that Sutton Hoo helped lead people to stop using the term "Dark Ages" and start using the term "Middle Ages" in its place. According to the source used in the article (although a few say essentially the same thing, Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages' - those centuries that followed the collapse of Roman rule in Britain."
 * Yes I know. So say so (unless I missed that bit). It would explain a lot why Kirby was so moved. Ceoil  (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sutton Hoo finds were soon donated to the British Museum - can we be clearer than "soon donated"
 * Changed to The Sutton Hoo finds were donated to the British Museum within weeks.
 * within weeks - thanks Ceoil  (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ...English sculptor Rick Kirby to create a sculpture - repetition re sculptor
 * Changed to "to create a work", but am open to other suggestions.
 * Maybe - the English artist Kirby to create a sculpture Ceoil  (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kirby's works included a number of public commissions at the time - "at the time" is redundant
 * How about "Kirby's works then included a number of public commissions"?
 * the glistening replica made by the Royal Armouries - "glistening" isn't very informing from a visual arts POV, which is my POV. A compare and contrast here might be appropriate.
 * What do you think of (note the piped link) "rather than the glistening silvery replica made by the Royal Armouries."?
 * Thats even worse. Ceoil  (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not say "glistening". Ceoil  (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall, excellent. Ceoil  (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, . Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review
Putting aside the question of length (I'm agnostic, but it would be the sixth-shortest FA at its current size per the list above) or overall feature-worthiness, something I can do in the meantime to help this along is give an image review. It's simple, it's low-hanging fruit, it clears one item off the checklist to get to more complicated issues.

There are two images: Per Commons, the UK's freedom of panorama law provides that it's OK to take photos of a sculpture put on permanent public display, which this helmet indeed is. So no copyright vio in taking photos of the sculpture, even though the sculpture itself is a copyrighted work.
 * Sutton Hoo Exhibition Hall.jpg – free-licensed, authored by a Commons user, no issues.
 * Sutton Hoo mask - geograph.org.uk - 178637.jpg – free-licensed, part of the Geograph project, no issues.

It may be advisable to include a photo of the actual Sutton Hoo helmet (or to be more precise, the reconstruction upon which Kirby's helmet is modeled). —BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from BLZ

 * That second image includes coordinates that could be used with template:coord on the page itself.
 * Added (using coordinates pulled from Google Maps).


 * Tentatively, I would say that the Axle Arts Twitter account is an OK source. While it's odd that they aren't verified, the gallery's homepage links back to that account so I don't see much reason to doubt its veracity. It seems like all the tweet adds, beyond what was already provided in the other Axle Arts, is to confirm that the sculpture named as "Sutton Hoo Helmet" in the pdf is in fact the maquette of this sculpture.
 * Incidentally, you have two sources that are institutionally credited to Axle Arts, but the tweet lists "Axle Arts" as the collective author, while the other gives "Axle Arts" as a journal (which I'm not sure is right anyway—maybe an unitalicized publisher). This is a small inconsistency and partly a quirk of the cite tweet template, but it might be worth rethinking how to format some of these citations—or possibly, to dig deeper for individual authors, as it may be possible to contact Axle or otherwise identify their catalog writer(s)/social media manager(s) at the time of the Kirby catalog/the tweet.
 * As you say, the main point of the tweet is to say that the artwork being offered for sale is a "maquette"; this word, which as you say is a technical term, is not used in the catalog. "Axle Arts," in the second citation (which uses the cite web template), is in the "website" parameter. Would you put it somewhere else?
 * I would probably put it in "author" so that it shows up next to the tweet in the bibliography. There isn't much meaningful distinction between "publisher" and "author" in this situation anyway, but it is kind of odd to have these two sources that are shortcited the same way show up so far apart. It's only an issue because it's forced by template:cite tweet, which only allows a Twitter handle to be considered as a (quasi-individual) author rather than as a publisher, even though there are many situations where a Twitter account would be better considered the publisher than the author—e.g. I wouldn't consider Burger King to be the "author" of @BurgerKing. More for the bibliography: you should change the parameters of ArtParkS International, Bath Contemporary, and National Trust from "website" to "publisher", since they aren't works or ongoing journals and thus shouldn't be italicized.
 * Done.


 * It looks like a 2002 issue of Minerva (archaeology magazine) may have commented on Kirby's statue. Google Snippet view; difficult to tell if they commented beyond the highlighted portion in that link. But it makes me wonder if there are other offline print sources out there, or academic sources that may be behind a paywall.
 * That issue can be found for free here; the article, by Angela Care Evans, is on pages 40–42. There is nothing else about the sculpture, although the article could be used to add some of the context that you speak of. Generally speaking, I've done a quite thorough search for sources, using, among others, Google, Google Books, ProQuest, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, twitter, hathitrust, and jstor. There may be out there (particularly other newspaper articles about the unveiling of the centre that mention the sculpture), but I have looked broadly.
 * Thanks for finding that. Too bad there's not more, but I still think it would be worthwhile to include the statement that the helmet "dominates the entrance to the Visitor Centre". It complements the stated intention of a "fierce presence" and, though it's not much, it gives some hint of the sculpture's "critical reception", since it's a third-party impression/assessment as to its artistic effectiveness.
 * Otherwise, I do trust that you've cast a wide net; I'd actually checked JSTOR myself before even posting my first comments, and sure enough found nothing on Rick Kirby or his work. Even this Bibliography of Anglo-Saxon studies in 2002 doesn't seem to turn up anything that may be about the Visitor Centre or Kirby's Helmet, other than the same Minerva article. —BLZ · talk 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, added.


 * Something that may help bulk up the article and give it the "standalone" quality that goes along with an FA-level of comprehensiveness: I think there could be more context provided about the site and the original helmet. I think you provide some good context about the origins of the visitor centre, but a general reader encountering this article as a TFA would leave it having little if any idea what Sutton Hoo or the Sutton Hoo Helmet actually are. This would only warrant a paragraph or two, but nevertheless the article screams out for a section with Template:Main.
 * I've added a new paragraph explaining what Sutton Hoo, and the Sutton hoo helmet, are; hopefully this gives a greater degree of context than before. (I've also trimmed part of the previous context, such as the ownership history of the Sutton Hoo estate, which seems unnecessary.)
 * Looks good to me.


 * "rendered on a much grander scale" – you give the dimensions of Kirby's helmet, but not any info about the dimensions of the reconstructed helmet. To some extent this is self-evident—it's roughly adult-male-human-head-sized, surely—but it would be nice to have that precision, so a reader can work out just how much bigger Kirby's helmet is. (Relatedly: you give the height of the maquette in centimeters/inches, but the dimensions of the actual sculpture in meters/feet.)
 * Added, and changed the units.


 * Some other omitted details that spark natural curiosity: it was unveiled in 2002, but when was it commissioned? Commissioned at what price? Why did the National Trust choose Rick Kirby, as opposed to other sculptors? How long did it take to make, from start to finish? What was the process? It may be that these questions aren't answered in any currently available sources, but they're basic aspects of almost any work of art that a reader would want to know about.
 * I emailed the National Trust last year, hoping to find out some of these answers, but never got a response. I've just sent another email, and requested copies of the 2002 and 2003 annual reports, in case they say something, from a library nearby.


 * Speaking of process: I now know what a "maquette" is because I bothered to click the link, but I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the finer points of sculpting—as most people are—and I wouldn't have understood that sentence on its own. I'm not asking you to adopt this exact wording—you would know better how exactly to word this—but I think the maquette would be better introduced to the reader like this: In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a maquette, which is a [definition of maquette]. The maquette, [height] with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600. —BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've largely adopted your wording (which I like), changing it to In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a mock-up, or maquette. The maquette, 1.97 m high with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600.

Thanks for the review,. I believe I've addressed each of your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the fast response. A few comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Steel is Kirby's favoured medium, giving him 'the ability to go huge' and the 'whoom-factor!' he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet." The source indicates that these qualities are why Kirby favors steel in general, but this wording suggests he commented on his Helmet in particular or attributed these qualities to the Helmet in particular, which he did not. Thus, "... he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet is misleading. Later, "Both the material and the subject are typical of Kirby's work. Steel is Kirby's material of choice, for what he describes as 'the ability to go huge' and its 'whoom-factor!'" is OK. It may be better to paraphrase in the lead rather than quote the same portion twice; I think something like "sense of scale and dramatic impact" would reasonably capture what he means. —BLZ · talk 20:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , done. I had wondered about that too. I originally kept it in since Kirby's words "whoom factor!" are so close to how the National Trust described the work—"wow factor"—but the new wording, giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact found in Sutton Hoo Helmet., is better. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Kirby's CV appears to list two Sutton Hoo commissions, one dated to 2000 and one dated to 2002, the latter "Unveiled By Shamus [sic] Heaney". Is the 2000 one the maquette? Either way, this clue gives some indication as to the overall timeline of the project.
 * I was confused by that too. If the 2000 one was commissioned by the National Trust, it would be odd for it to be the maquette, given that it was offered for sale by a private gallery. I think it may be a mistake—at least, I don't think it is citable evidence that the sculpture above the visitor centre was commissioned in 2000. I way as well send another email to Kirby, however.


 * Probably good to summarize briefly Kirby's career/most notable works up to that point, too. Even if we don't know exactly why National Trust chose him, indicating briefly what else he had done recently is good context.
 * Added a line mentioning his public commissions, and specifically those unveiled by Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth.


 * 245 acres – in keeping with your handling of units elsewhere, reasonable to parenthetically convert this to square kms and miles.
 * I'm not sure that this one needs conversion, since acres are units in both imperial and US customary systems.


 * £5 million – big sum, 20 years old; you could consider adjusting for inflation: " equivalent to approximately £million in " gives "equivalent to approximately £million in ". —BLZ · talk 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.

Thanks, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support At this point I have no doubt that the article is as complete and comprehensive as it could possibly be, under the circumstances of its subject matter, and I have no doubts as to the quality of the writing, research, or any FA criteria. Usernameunique has been very responsive, and I think this article demonstrates even articles with modest or obscure subject matter can be featured-quality. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, . --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber
Looks fine prose- and comprehensiveness-wise, apart from one quibble - " but is rendered on a much grander scale" could be construed as positive POV, so I would say " but is rendered on a much larger scale" - not a deal-breakert though. Ncie work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the review and support, . --Usernameunique (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * All links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
 * Formats:
 * Ref 19: p. number missing
 * The cite is to the entire work, since the chapter is Nigel Williams’s description of the reconstruction.
 * Bibliography includes "Rick Kirby, Bath Contemporary" and "Rick Kirby Sculptor profile", but there appear to be no citations to these sites.
 * They’re in the final two citations, 21–22.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality and reliability: no issues – the sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.
 * Thanks for the source review, . Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * nothing to say on the Ipswich Star? ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

 * "A representation of the Anglo-Saxon namesake helmet found in the Sutton Hoo ship-burial": I know what you mean by this, but "namesake helmet" reads awkwardly to me; I would say "Anglo-Saxon helmet of the same name" or "from which it takes its name" or even "which is its namesake".
 * Done.
 * Better, thanks. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The lead has two instances where you have two consecutive links, which is disrecommended by the MOS: "Anglo-Saxon namesake helmet" and "Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney". And I didn't expect to end up at List of Nobel laureates in Literature from "Nobel Laureate": I expected it to point to Nobel Prize in Literature.
 * "Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney" is actually three links—including Nobel Prize in Literature—but that kind of proves your point. I've compromised by moving the second link to the body of the article.
 * Yeah, this is definitely clearer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly, if not uniquely, labelled "Britain's Tutankhamun"": what does "if not uniquely" mean here? (I guess that other finds have also been given the appellation, but it isn't clear from the text)
 * That's exactly what it means. As said above, in §Support by Ceoil, "'Britain's Tutankhamun' is bit of an unthoughtful term by the press, used also for the Staffordshire Hoard (link), the Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial (link), and undoubtedly others throughout the decades." I can add some of those sources if you think it needs it.
 * I might suggest something a little more verbose: "The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly labelled "Britain's Tutankhamun" – a term also used for other discoveries such as the Staffordshire Hoard and Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial." Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case I think I'm inclined to just remove the clause, as naming the other "Tutankhamuns" seems a little tangential (especially in a background section). I had also toyed with "if not uniquely," but for reasons discussed above that also seems not ideal.
 * Yeah, I think this is an improvement to be honest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "became known as the Middle Ages": this surprised me. I was under the impression (though I am no medievalist!) that the dark ages referred to the early middle ages.  Our article on Dark Ages tells me that the term was once used to denote the entire medieval period, but that by the 19th century it was restricted to the early part of the period.
 * Dark Ages (historiography) seems to answer this, stating that "scholars began restricting the 'Dark Ages' appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century), and now scholars also reject its usage in this period. The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate."
 * Yes, I understand that; what I object to is that this article seems to be saying that the Sutton Hoo discoveries were a (the?) major reason for this, whereas Dark Ages (historiography) suggests that the change was already well underway! (and I note that the source cited does not make the claim that either the term "Dark Ages" was still being used at the time of the Sutton Hoo discovery, or that the discovery was responsible for the shift to "Middle Ages"; just that "it profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages'") Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this point is strong. MacGregor 2011 states both that Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages'" and that Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed our understanding of this whole chapter of British history. Long dismissed as the Dark Ages, this period, the centuries after the Romans withdrew, could now be seen as a time of high sophistication and extensive international contacts that linked East Anglia not just to Scandinavia and the Atlantic but ultimately to the eastern Mediterranean and beyond." Marzinzik 2007 says that "the quality and beauty of the garnet jewellery and millefiori glass inlay in particular ... and the complexity of the chain-mail and textiles demonstrated a sophistication unexpected from what was then called 'The Dark Ages.'" Nor is that to mention the article entitled "When the Dark Ages Were Lit Up: the Sutton Hoo discovery 70 years on." There are many more examples. Dark Ages (historiography) is not inconsistent: It states that by the time of the Sutton Hoo discovery, the Early Middle Ages—from which time the ship-burial dates—were still referred to as the "Dark Ages," even if the High and Late Middle Ages had begun to be lose the "Dark" moniker. Even if the change was underway, the discovery of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial was clearly a catalyst.
 * Okay, Marzinzik does support "then known as the Dark Ages", and the sources do support that the Sutton Hoo helmet was a major factor in the change. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "The maquette, 1.97 m (6.5 ft) high with pedestal": Possibly this is merely a sad indictment of my reading comprehension, but my first thought was "that's a bloody enormous maquette" and the second was "wait, isn't the full sized sculpture only 1.8 meters?" Do we have the dimensions of the work without pedestal? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had pretty similar thoughts. We could extrapolate from the dead-on photograph in the catalogue that the sans-pedestal work is about .75 m, but that might be pressing it. The fact that the height includes the pedestal is already an extrapolation (it's clear from the Twitter photograph, set against a doorframe, that this is nowhere near 15 feet tall), but I figured it was important to make that clear.
 * Pity. Would be nice to have more dimensions for the work (width and depth as well!) but if that's all that is out there then c'est la vie. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose we don't know what became of the maquette after it went up for sale?
 * Just sent the gallery an email. I'm doubtful that it will lead to anything, let alone anything sufficiently sourced to add to the article, but worth a shot.
 * I would be astonished if they tell you anything. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just received a response saying that it was sold some years ago, and that it was created as part of Kirby's pitch for the commission. The pedestal was added at the suggestion of the gallery, to make it appropriate for a domestic setting. This is interesting stuff, especially that it seems that the commission was opened to a number of sculptors, who went through something of an audition process. I'll follow up (and see if perhaps a photo of the maquette could be licensed).
 * Oh, that's really interesting stuff. Would be great if you could find any reliable sources which discuss this! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've just asked. It also supports 's theory, above, that the 2000 National Trust Sutton Hoo Helmet listed on Kirby's cv is the maquette; if made for the pitching process it would have had to be made some time before the 2002 sculpture, and was, in a sense, made for the National Trust. Also, one more response above (re: "Dark Ages"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review,. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. Though I still have reservations about the Dark Ages thing, I cannot rationally explain them... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review,, and now the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)