Talk:Serpent labret with articulated tongue/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 23:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

The eagle labret held by the Museo Civico d'Arte Antica (above) mirrors the labret worn by the Aztec ruler Nezahualcoyotl, shown in the Codex Ixtlilxochitl (below).

Well, this is an admirably clear, readable, well-illustrated and fully-cited article on a major cultural artefact, and I expect it's on its way to FAC. I have only a few small suggestions to make.

• The image caption "The eagle labret held by the Museo Civico d'Arte Antica mirrors the labret seen in the Codex Ixtlilxochitl" calls out a tiny detail, the labret, in the image of Nezahualcoyotl. "Tiny", because in the thumbnail it's just over 1mm long; even when clicked on, so the image occupies the window, the labret is still only 4mm long, not ideal for comparison. Finally when clicked on twice more it gets big enough to study; but by then the eagle labret image is out of sight. I suggest that you add a detail of the Nezahualcoyotl image, something like this (or cropped down even more), and place it adjacent to the photo of the eagle labret for comparison.

• Great idea, done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The sentence The Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagún, writing in the Florentine Codex, records a labret as among Moctezuma II's coronation regalia, while the Dominican friar Diego Durán, writing in The History of the Indies of New Spain, records labrets as among the presents Moctezuma bestowed upon visiting lords for the occasion. is rather long and could be split after "regalia".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to begin a new sentence for "The Met also holds...", so we have one sentence for gold eagle labrets, and another for the other types.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• "The lower jaw is covered in scales;" – this needs to be explained, as in the photo the lower jaw seems to be entirely smooth and polished from end to end, like the rest of the body actually. What scales? Where? Shaped like what? Pillsbury says they're on the underside of the jaw, so out of sight: another image would obviously be helpful here.

• Now The underside of the lower jaw is covered in scales. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also added a gallery which shows some of the details—the scales, headdress, etc. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• "a ring of ten circles": incomprehensible and seemingly wrong, as Pillsbury gives the 3-dimensional description "a ring of ten small spheres". If this was an attempt at paraphrase, it's incorrect as a description of the object; it would be better to quote and attribute it if that's the issue.

• Now a circle of ten spheres from which extend three loops. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• "a curator at the Met": suggest attributing this by name, i.e. "the Met curator Joanne Pilsbury", given how much weight you're giving her in the article and her evident expertise on the object.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose we'd better consider the use of the slightly slangy, slightly NY abbreviation "the Met". We Londoners use that phrase for the Metropolitan Police... and people from other countries may find the abbreviation obscure or jarring. I see that you spell out the name of the museum in full in the list of Exhibitions, five times, so it might be best to spell it out in the text as well.

• Fair point. The first time its used, I've added a parenthetical: Gold eagle labrets are held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the "Met"). --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• "spines": perhaps clarify this as "plant spines" or "thorns"; in an anatomical context of heads and necks, a different interpretation strays to mind.

• Changes to thorns. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The quoted comment "to survive the crucibles of the sixteenth century" needs a gloss of some kind; it wasn't just that the Aztec world was shattered, but that gold artefacts were actively melted down, so that few survive. This is a central fact when considering this rare survival's importance, so we need a cited statement to this effect. There are plenty of suitable sources. Perhaps what is missing is a brief "Context" section (before "Labrets") to explain the fatal impact of the Spanish, etc.

• Added a "Background" section which covers this. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• pinpointed to Mixteca, or to Mixtec makers: well I feel I almost understand this, but perhaps a gloss would be helpful to clarify the difference between these two groups, if indeed they are different. If they're the same then rewording (", more specifically to...") is required. The word "pinpointed" does seem a bit out of place here, if the point of the pin indicates an entire culture over a wide geographic area.

• Ditto. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

• All are from Commons, and all seem to be suitably licensed. I suppose that File:Cultura mixteca-azteca, ornamento labiale a forma di testa d'aquila in oro, 1200-1521 ca..JPG could do with a PD tag for the object depicted, as well as the existing CC-by-SA tag for the photo.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Spot checks are all fine.

• For [15] "Ornamento labiale", suggest adding |location=Turin, as the museum's name doesn't indicate the city.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• For [19] "Labret/Lip plug representing a bird", suggest adding |location=Washington, ditto.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary

This article is very nearly ready for GA and basically just needs a little attention to the points indicated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing this, Chiswick Chap. No 200-source bibliography to contend with here! Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.