Wikipedia:Featured article review/Book of Kells/archive1


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

The article was kept 19:21, 15 March 2008.

Book of Kells

 * Notified WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Middle Ages,‎ WikiProject Anglicanism‎, WikiProject Religious texts‎, WikiProject Visual arts, User:Dsmdgold

This is an outstanding well-written article. However, it has only a handful of inline citations. This was not much of an issue when it was approved as a featured article in 2005, but as I understand, it's absolutely essential today. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the primary author of this article. (Thank you for your characterization of it, by the way.) I've been half expecting this for over a year. When this article was nominated, the inline citation feature was very poorly implemented. I no longer have easy access to the materials needed to provide inline citation for this article, as I borrowed all of them via inter-library loan. Nor will I be able to work on this in this next few weeks. If someone has access to a university library, the most important sources were, in order,: Henry, Francoise. The Book of Kells, Henderson, George. From Durrow to Kells: the Insular Gospel-books, 650–800, and Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access to the above sources, but may be of some help. -- SECisek (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can get these and would be happy to help. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have Calkins, and other relevant books (see my user page). I will see what I can do, but I expect Henry is needed really. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got the Henry, but not Henderson. I picked some other stuff up too while I was at it, but I don't think I can put much time into it until this evening at the earliest.  Kafka Liz (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd better go first with Henry - Calkins tends to ref back to her. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead could do with some work if anybody feels like tackling it. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can take a crack at it after I've put in the Henry refs. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, yeah. That's the very first thing I noticed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I've reworked the lead now and would welcome any feedback. I've tried to make it more concise without eliminating any of the essential information.  Please let me know what you think. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a good deal longer (and I'm a lead minimalist). See WP:LEAD - this is a long article, so the lead should be close to the 4 para recommended max here I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. :) This is the first article of length that I've put any substantial work into, and I wasn't sure how long it should be. I'll get to work on expanding it.  Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the donkey work! Btw, if you saw the "citations" para of WP:LEAD, I would personally think this is a case where no citations may be necessary in the lead, so long as everything is cited when it is expanded lower down, unless anyone disagrees.  Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm enjoying working on this a lot - I wish I had more time for it! :) I agree that the lead doesn't need citations; I think that the references below should cover things pretty well. My plans are 1) expand the lead; 2) do some overall light copyediting; 3) finish standardising the notes and references; and 4) do a final check for citations.  Thanks again for your help and feedback. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)