Lokrume helmet fragment is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I don't think this one is needed, since there's a Google Books link. I see OCLCs as indicating what library to check a book out of, and here it can be checked out of Google.
An OCLC nails down a specific edition of a pre-1967 book. Strictly ISBNs and OCLCs are optional, although I have not previously seen them omitted when available. To be clear, no further action is necessary.
Makes sense, although in this case the GBooks version is the specific one that I used. I use OCLCs when a work has no other identifying information (ISBN, GBooks/HathiTrust link, jstor/doi, etc.), but they always feel a bit imprecise. Frequently one work will have multiple OCLCs due to inconsistent cataloging; this one seems to have at least two, and maybe an offprint as well.
As does Grieg (463022789).
Done.
Optional: could you put the bibliography in alphabetical order (Steuer)?
"it was first published in 1907" "it" wasn't published. 'a description of it was ...'?
Changed to "It was first described in print in the academic journal Fornvännen in 1907"
"it is joined by" seems odd wording. Perhaps 'the others are'?
Done.
"Fornvännen" should be in italics.
Done.
A random check shows the sources supporting their cites. (No action required.)
The main article seems to start a bit in the middle. It only really makes sense if one has read the lead, while it should stand alone. Maybe reword as 'The Lokrume helmet fragment accounts for the eyebrows, and part of the nose guard, from a Viking era helmet. It is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide.' or similar?
Changed to "The Lokrume helmet fragment is the remnant of the eyebrow piece, and part of the nose guard, from a helmet. The fragment is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide." Left out the part about the Viking Age, since that's more analytical and therefore discussed in "Typology."
Not a lot to pick at. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Gog the Mild, responses are above. Thanks again for the review. The fragment is never discussed by any one source in more than a paragraph or two, so I'm fairly pleased to be able to stitch together this article. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes. My poking at the sources suggested that you have done an excellent detective job. This is possibly the best treatment of thre fragment in existence. No problem promoting to GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
