Wikipedia:Peer review/Book of Kells/archive1

Book of Kells
I would like to nominate this article for FA status, but thought it could be looked at here first. One issue that needs to be addressed is spelling. This is a British topic and ought not use American spellings. But I am an American and probably missed many Americanisms.

The article is also long, but I am uncertain about how to cut it. I know that at least on FA violates the 32K limit. Dsmdgold 14:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recent voting examples have passed articles well over the 32k limit. Enough people thought the limit silly and would unreasonably ruin the given articles. YMMV. Other items: 1.) The lead section should, to the greatest extent possible use only terms that nearly every single reader would be aware of or define them inline. Examples needing that are the Vulgate and Gospel Book. A great lead section shouldn't require reading of any other article to get a good idea of what this one is about. Also make it clear this book is written in Latin, not a translation from Latin as one could read that sentence. Also, is it vulgur latin like the Vulgate? 2.) The lead image caption should follow the same advice as for the lead section. It should make sense to someone not already familiar with the subject. I don't really know what a carpet page is or for sure what a folio is. 3.) What is MS 58 at the end of the lead section? A citation? Which leads to 4.) The articles biggest problem is the lack of inline citations. Fact should be cited to their source, such as with (Alexander, 1988, pg 23). That leads to the next point, that  5.) the article as it stands has no legitimate references. 'Further reading' is not the same thing, as that title is ambiguous as to whether the listed resources have actually been used for information by the page author(s) or if they are just available for more information. Assuming you have used some of them properly as references, please split those into a 'references' section, and leave the rest in further reading. I know that is a lot of suggestions, but it will help make it a great article. What is there that I read so far seems very good and well written. Keep up the god work. - Taxman 10:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. To address your issues: 1) I have done a minor rewrite of the intro that I think addresses your concerns. 2) Rather than try to explain what a Carpet Page is, I have changed the image. I like this page better as full pages of decorated text is much more representative of Kells than the Carpet page. 3) The rewrite should explain what the "MS 58" is. My actual preference is to have the manuscript identifies in the standard manner, which would be to have the catalog reference follow immediately behind the name of the manuscript thus: The Book of Kells (Dublin, Trinity College Library, MS 58)... However, I have written it thus in the past and it gets changed.  5) I have split my references from the more complete bibliography.  4) I have not addressed.  Is this really a standard, and, if it is, should it be?  Of the last four articles featured on the front page Bahá'í Faith, Gold standard, Eifel Aqueduct, and Bernard Williams, only the Williams article has in-line references, and then only for direct quotes.  Additionally, I am not sure that this SHOULD be a standard.  No other Encyclopedia does in text citations.  For that matter, the only venue where it is done in the form you recommend is in academic journals, which Wikipedia is not. Dsmdgold
 * No, this is not a standard and frankly it shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Filiocht 13:53, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work overall. This is a great article, and you have fixed every concern I had but #4, the one you mentioned. As to that, no that is not standard, even though the featured article criteria clearly call for it. Just because other encyclopedia's don't do it, why should Wikipedia be limited by that? Why should Wikipedia strive for anything less than being the most authoritative source of information that is available? That is the ideal, but basically Wikipedia's only serious legitimate criticism left is that it is not reliable or trustworthy because it can be edited by random anonymous users. The easiest (only?) way to truly disarm that is to research and cite references properly. - Taxman 20:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest cutting the image of the page from the Lindisfarne Gospel. It is unnecesary in this article and the image you are supposed to compare it to is not clearly labeled and five screens down the page making comparison impractical. Perhaps a link to a separate article comparing the illustration styles of several manuscripts would be a better method. Rmhermen 13:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I included the Lindisfarne image because I want to make the point that Kells did not come as a bolt out of the blue.  But, your point about the difficulty of finding the comparison image is valid.  I have included a link to the image from the caption of the Lindisfarne illustration so that the comparison is only a click away. Dsmdgold 19:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the wider point, I've been meaning for some time to add a section on the Book of Kells in modern Irish culture, but just haven't gotten round to it. For anyone who is interest, this would extend over coinage and stamp design, the artist Jim Fitzpatrick, album covers from Thin Lizzie and other Irish bands, calendars and posters, leatherwork, New Age hippy--dippy stuff and the myth of "Celtic" mysticism, the development of the BoK visitors' centre at Trinity since 1988, tourism, and how this development tied in with the pseudo-millenium Dublin bash of that year, linen weaving, bodhrán designs, Irish dancing costumes (and, by implication, Riverdance for dropping Celtic interlacing from dancers' costumes), fashion design, signpainting, Finnegans Wake and so on. This would, if added, really flesh out the article. Filiocht 14:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * This, I think,would be a very good addition, and something I have thought of myself. I would have added it, but being an American who, sadly, has never been to Ireland, I can rewally only say, "It seems to me that the Book of Kells is really important to the Irish." Not very useful, Dsmdgold 02:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I converted the article to British spelling. I hope I got everything. -- Haukurth 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Dsmdgold 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)