Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Gold Cup/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010 [1].

Royal Gold Cup edit

Royal Gold Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the first FA on any object or indeed topic from the applied/decorative/"minor" arts - concepts that would have puzzled those who commissioned and made its subject in the late 14th century. It is about a major masterpiece of medieval metalwork in the British Museum, over four pounds weight of solid gold, with spectacular enamel decoration, showing an exciting and improving story. It is a new article, which has been at peer review with no comments - perhaps people thought it was about horse-racing. It qualifies for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize. I ask for the references to be left alone as I intend adding page-numbers to some I have only seen in online texts, and also working through the "further reading", although I don't expect much to need adding from that. It needs additional pictures of details of the cup, which I also hope to organize, but there is a very good set of 18 images at the British Museum catalogue database page. The substantive literature is relatively small, and I have covered all that I can find. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Esuzu Esuzu (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a question: Why is the same picture (only difference is the flash) featured twice in the article?
Because they're the only ones we have currently! As I say above I hope to replace these with several shots of details. Meanwhile people need to see what we have of the images on the cup at the point where they are described. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Esuzu (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four new photos of details now added; I'm tremendously grateful to those who took them. I hope there will be more. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lead should summarise the article references aren't needed there. I think it looks cleaner if they are not there.
Well the lead contains 4 quotes, which obviously need references. Plus it also contains a basic description, and the numbers for dimensions, weight etc, which are not all repeated below, so these need referencing. I did originally have this stuff in a 2nd section, but this just works better. I try to avoid references in the lead, & I think only those necessary are referenced here. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you. Esuzu (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; where are they not? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one place where they are... ;) Just do a search for ". and ", and you should find them.
Ok, & I can see the policy currently says to use "logical punctuation". But I thought this was controversial, & had a WP:ENGVAR aspect - US illogical, UK (for once) illogical. Does anybody know? But in any case, only those where the next punctuation is in the quote are affected, aren't they. I have changed some anyway. One blockquote doesn't need additional quotes at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I follow the policy per WP:LQ. If in the article an entire sentence is quoted, or a piece of a sentence ending in full stop, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. If the article quotes a fragment without punctuation, then punctuation occurs after the quotation marks. Hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jean, duc de Berry (1340–1416) was Charles VI's uncle, and a powerful figure in the kingdom, as well as the most famous and extravagant collector and commissioner of art of his day." According to whom?
Covered by the next ref. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to say who said the "as well as the most famous and extravagant" part. Or making it a quote. Esuzu (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a very exceptional statement, precisely because he is so famous for being an extravagant collector. A google search on ""duc de Berry" extravagant collector" gets 1,500 ghits, quite an impressive figure. [2] and 26 on gbooks - "He was one of the most extravagant patrons and collectors in the history of art" - Oxford dictionary of art. I only say "of his day". I don't like having consecutive sentences refed to the identical ref, or you end up with one per sentence. Besides this is really something of a cliche, which a later section tries to balance by stressing his brother was no better, or worse. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed, using the same ref in consecutive sentences isn't very nice. If it is as you say, not a very radical statement, it is OK as it is. Esuzu (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the death of his brother Henry V, Bedford struggled to stem the resurgent French resistance, which was energised by Joan of Arc, and died in Normandy in 1435, leaving Henry VI as his heir." could this sentence be split or in some way made easier to read? Currently there is a lot of commas.
Sentence split Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references (notes), for example 25, 26 and 28 all refer to the same page. Why not make them the same note?
See the nomination. I hope to get page numbers for Lightbown etc, who at the moment I just have online, plus the further reading items, so some refs are likely to be added. after that they can be consolidated. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs consolidated where posssible for now. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how do you add it? That link doesn't say. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here: Wikipedia:Manual of_Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces
Ok, Many thanks, Truthkeeper! Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Lorenzo Ghiberti" something short about who Ghiberti is in the text would be good.
Ok, done Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is, for example, "Psalms 119:11" an embedded link and not an reference?
I think this is usual with biblical quotations, isn't it? It's what the bibleverse template is there for. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea actually :) I asked because I was wondering, but if it is customary it is obviously no problem. Esuzu (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources themselves look fine, but there are numerous presentation and formatting issues to be sorted out. I am not sure whether I've caught them all, but here are the main ones:-

  • The British Museum online sources need proper formatting. I have done the first one.
Reversed, amending the format somewhat, as all the references use the "nickname" text you changed. The most important thing here, in the deeply confusing BM website, is that it is from the short "Highlights" part of the site, which lacks links across to the far more detailed "collection database" records. The references use these terms to make it clear which is meant at any point. I don't see there is an MOS issue here. What you quoted was in no sense the title of the page, but a 4th level header. The title of both pages is "The Royal Gold Cup", so obviously some disam is needed, but I think this is the way. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been changed several times, but at the very least the name for the reference that all the citations use must actually appear in the references section! Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book references require consistency in the use of publisher locations and ISBNs
One location removed, and some commas added; all of them I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access dates are not necessary for Google book links
Just two I think; removed Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher names such as "OUP" ought to be written out
OUP done, were there others? Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying "excerpt online at British Museum database", why not provide the link?
It is already in the refs once, at the reference cited at this point "British Museum collection database". Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has the Maryon book been given a nickname in the references?
Because there is another one in "Further reading", though I hope both will end up in the main refs. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the two Maryon books have different years and different titles, it doesn't seem likely that they'll be confused, but the point is trivial, no bother. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a list headed "References" should include all the references used in the article. At present a few are not, but can be found in the Notes.
I think only those that reference or supplement comments in the notes, & don't deal with the cup itself. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue I can insist on, more a personal preference. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the Notes contain unreferenced information, e.g. 61 (Agnes etc)
"the Golden Legend in Caxton's version" is in the refs, under Caxton. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" works should not be cited. The work "Read" should be transferred to references.
What others say he says is cited, and in one case what they quote him as saying. I have not seen his work, so it should not be in the references, though I hope to read him directly before long, & move him up, with direct refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified ref 34; he no longer appears "cited". Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (note: VA project member) Just great work, this reader was drawn in and engaged by an area of craft I would not usually be interested in. There a are a few minor ref and biblo formating issues which are almost incidental and I can mostly fix myself. JSTOR and Google books are not usually linked; I think because JSTOR is paid and google books addresses chage quite a bit. Any worries if I remove these. Other than that, this is a comprehensive, exhaustively researched and beautifully constructed article we can hold up. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I thought I'd done all the books, but we usually link JSTOR don't we? Maybe not in that format. We should as the article is only 4 pages long, & the preview has page 1, which has the main point. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking JSTOR is rubbing in the face. I have a few friends now that will pass on the pages on request, but it is tantilising meeting a sub ref during a casual read. You need to sort out page numbers for Lightbown. Before I get cross. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new lead image is outstanding and adds greatly. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Easy to read, interesting, nice images, comprehensive. Nice job all around. Made a few fixes (the second image was overlaying the text on my monitor, so adjusted it a bit). One comment: suggest putting the Latin phrases in italics per MoS Italics. I will comment above re: logical quotations. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Latin quotes now look like this: "...a banderole reads Quo modo cecidisti qui mane oriebaris ("How has thou fallen that risest in the morning", Isaiah 14:12), and the Prefect looks on sadly." Does that look right, or should they be in quotes as well? Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems cleaner and easier to read as is. I'd leave it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Declaration of interest: also involved in the WP:GLAM/BM collaboration prject.) The Land (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Support. (Declaration of interest: also involved in the WP:GLAM/BM collaboration project.) Nice read but:
  1. "Agnes, not being a Valois, rejects him" - an explanation of the "a Valois" bit would be helpful as the saint precedes the founding of the dynasty by about a millennia. Was this perhaps meant to be not being a pagan?
    No, it's by way of being a joke. There is a certain irony in the scene given the family who commissioned the work. One of the sources touches on that. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, in that case perhaps we could make it less of an injoke, perhaps by expanding on the Valois section? ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I thought it was during the Commonwealth not the Protectorate that the second set of English crown jewels were lost.
    Well the source said the Protectorate, but I'll see if I can check. It seems the Commonwealth of England covers the Protectorate too, so I'll change to that. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do we have any assay or scientific analysis of the cup available? I'd have hoped by now someone would have at least analyzed the two later cylinders to confirm and perhaps cast light on their separate provenance.
    Not that I'm aware of, & I think not - the BM site (which seems to be taking the night off) covers the glass, and metal in it, but doesn't mention analysis of the gold. As the article suggests gold is continually being melted down and reused; in the 14th & 16th century most gold had been above ground since ancient times, & reused countless times. Beyond a purity figure I don't think much would be revealed; of course the 1610 Spanish ring may well contain American gold. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for checking. If no-ones covered it we can't either, but it would have been good if that had confirmed the additions as separately or even American sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Several images lack alt text.
All of them; at least I have not added any. It is not an FAC requirement, and debate still seems to be raging over what it should contain. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my understanding is that alt text is off the table for the moment. Note alt text is an espically punishing requirment for thoes in the visual arts area, where you have to give a very literal description of things that are deliberatly ambigious. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well if its not a requirement I can see it wouldn't be easy to do.
Thanks for support. I hope eventually to add it - much of the visual description is in the text already. It's also that the detail images used are still expanding. It depends whether one is supposed to say "a young woman in a red dress with a halo" or "St Agnes", and so on. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original decorated knop or finial on the cover has been lost, and a strip decorated with 36 pearls has been lost from the outer edge of the cover - two "lost"s in the one sentence - reckon we can change the first to "has vanished" or would that sound a wee bit naff?
I just changed the 2nd to "removed", which I think is ok. Neither loss was an accident, for sure! Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Bibliothèque nationale de France is in foreign, shouldn't it be italicised?
I'm pretty sure not, the italicization rules apply to foreign words and phrases, and any titles of works, but not places or institutions. I've no problem changing if any one can point to a policy. Wikipedia:MOSITALICS#Foreign_terms is not very comprehensive. See here for example. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am a bit confused - what is " surviving in two copies in the Bibliothèque nationale de France" ?
The inventory, of which 2 copies survive, next to each other in the BnF. I could just drop "in two copies". Is it unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry as it is in foreign and is a book?
Done. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His meeting with Charles in 1391 reconciled the two after a period of bad relations when the young king had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after his rapacious conduct had led to unrest - reads a little ungainly. I'd split and maybe put more chronologically?
"The young king Charles had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after the latter's rapacious conduct had led to unrest, but the two eventually reconciled after meeting in 1991." - not set in stone but might be worth fiddling a bit.
Done with fiddled last half: "The young king Charles had been forced to remove his uncle from governorships after the latter's rapacious conduct had led to unrest, and the meeting in 1391 marked their reconciliation after a period of bad relations." Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palais du Louvre - italicized?
I don't think so - just Louvre certainly isn't; I think you cross the line at le palais du Louvre. I could just say Louvre Palace, since Wetman is on holiday. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'trecento' - italicized?
Normally yes, but here it's unitalicized, but in "quotes", in a quote, as is "Italianate". A bit odd, but I think I should respect it. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"French silver made prior to the early 19th century is probably scarcer than that of any other European country." - looks weird as a quote. Should be reworded and dequoted.
I know what you mean, but the quote is so precise and qualified it's really hard to reword without plagiarizing. And I can't go the "according to ..." route really, as the Oxford Companion lists a raft of "contributors" without saying who wrote which bit. Unless I just use the book title. Does starting the sentence "Despite the fact that..." help? Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken, this area ain't my forte. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, these are all just quibbles and we're close to getting this one over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no redirects to this article, but "Saint Agnes Cup" is mentioned as an alternative name in the lead. — Dispenser 14:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, done for "Saint", "St" & Coupe de Saint Agnes. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should there also be a mention in the disambig page Gold Cup? Witty Lama 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; added a section with 3 of them. I don't think an "other" hatnote is needed at this article is it? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because those other ones aren't known as either the "royal cup" or "gold cup". they just happen to be golden cups associated with royalty. :-) Witty Lama 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'm reading the article now and will add a full review later. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random comment: The article looks pretty good, but why doesn't Lightbown's ref calls have the page numbers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's covered above; at the moment I'm working off an online text, but should have the page numbers shortly. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_Gold_Cup/archive1&oldid=1054462055"