Talk:Sutton Hoo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've long had an interest in Sutton Hoo - so it would be good to find out a bit more while doing a review. My views and general approach to Good Article reviews are here. I welcome and value discussion. I've not yet read the article, but had a quick glance at it. It looks neat and tidy and fairly comprehensive. There's an impressive list of print sources at the end. I feel encouraged that it will be a scholarly and informative read. A quibble is that the lead looks rather short for such an important topic. It is helpful if the lead section is an independent summary of the topic rather than an introduction - see WP:Lead for some guidance on that.

I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to give my initial comments. If there are no readily available sources online for Sutton Hoo, it may take a while to complete the review while I order material from my local library. The Bruce-Mitford guide looks to be the main source, and it would be interesting to delve into that. SilkTork *^YES! 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take your time! I am away next week in any case - back 16th. As you will see from the edit history, I have actually added little to the article, which is mainly the effort of an editor who has retired. It has always seemed of a very high standard to me, so I nominated it in the hope that only minor tidying would be needed. The only work I have specifically on SH is Carver 1998, but I can also get others in libraries, though that will take time. I used to add Google books links myself, but FAC now forces their removal as "unstable". Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct me to an instance where someone in a FAC forced removal of a cite? I'd like to read the reasoning. SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See the recent FAC for Royal Gold Cup. It seems to be standard now. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and saw nothing there about removing links. There was a comment that suggested that access dates are not needed for Google Books, and I understand the thought behind that, as a scanned page is likely to remain stable, though I wouldn't ask anyone to remove potentially useful information. The access date tells us when the cite was added. I note that you fully engaged in discussion with the reviewers. That's good. I see the process as collaborative - and some aspects of FA and GA criteria are open to interpretation. The aim, as far as I see it, is to produce an article that the general reader will find useful. Requests which make an article less useful, are inappropriate - though it may take some discussion and thinking to work out the best way of presenting material. I tend to rely on guidelines as I feel that the thinking has already been done, though each situation brings it's own unique problems, and it may not always be appropriate to follow the guideline. SilkTork *^YES! 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See this diff. I think he went ahead and removed them. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr Steven Plunkett is still around. SilkTork *^YES! 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But I had better see if Dr Eehbahgum is willing to participate before making any changes. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After going through an article and finishing my initial comments I tend to contact the major contributors and related WikiProjects as a matter of course, letting them know a GA review is in progress, and that I have have identified some areas to work on, so, yes, please let Eebahgum know that a GA review is in progress - he is the major contributor. However, please do get involved in improving the article yourself. You have been involved in some good quality article development, so I completely trust your judgement and ability. SilkTork *^YES! 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

An observation - it's not a GA requirement, but can be helpful for both the student and general reader - is that much material is available online these days - especially on Google Books, and can be linked to, so a reader can check a source at the click of a button, and read the information in context. Very few of the cites are linked - are none of the significant Sutton Hoo sources online? I also noticed that one source I looked at randomly, "Bruce-Mitford 1975, 488–577" did not easily relate to the texts listed in the bibliography - it took a few moments to decide that it probably referred to "R.L.S. Bruce-Mitford et al., The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial (3 Vols in 4) (British Museum, London 1975, 1978, 1983)." I think that is because there are three dates given, and a scan read just picks up the last date. These cite presentation comments are not going to impact on the review - they are just my individual comments on my initial experience. SilkTork *^YES! 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at Google Books - there are a number of books on Sutton Hoo. This one - Sutton Hoo: the excavation of a royal ship-burial - looks useful, and is online. It does look like a boat was discovered in Barrow 2 in 1938. SilkTork *^YES! 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are references and a reference section. There are some statements that may be challenged and are unsourced. I haven't checked for OR as yet, though I have removed a statement that there was only book on the topic as there appear to be a number of others - [1] - and it seems the statement was an incorrect editorial intervention. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Prose

• I'm just reading through casually before going to bed, and I note that the prose style tends to be a little informal and casual. The Discovery section starts like a short story: "Edith May Pretty lived in Sutton Hoo house and owned the estate at the time of the discovery, having moved there with her husband in 1926." A more helpful opening might be: "The ship burial was discovered in [date] on land belonging to Edith May Pretty...." I haven't given a date for the discovery of the ship burial because that is not clear from the text. There is also a tendency for unnecessary flourish - "Sutton Hoo is of a primary importance to early medieval historians because it sheds light on a period of English history which is on the margin between myth, legend and historical documentation." The bit in italics is quite poetic, though a more informative explanation may be more helpful for the general reader - "...sheds light on a period of English history sometimes termed the Dark Ages because of the lack of written records." SilkTork *^YES! 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The prose is very readable and of a very good standard, however, I am finding the casual, chatty style is not in keeping with the quick and easy clarity required for a general encyclopedia entry. By itself the prose might not prevent the article being listed, though combined with the layout and other issues it is preventing easy understanding of the information and so would be a fail. Clarity of information is important. There are some short paragraphs which doesn't help readability. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have had a blitz on phrases in brackets, which stood out as a prose issue for me. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

MoS issues

• I note that the layout is a bit choppy, with some short sections, and a tendency toward bullet-point paragraphing. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) for some comments on how short sections can make an article appear cluttered and interrupt the flow of reading. SilkTork *^YES! 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think the "exhibition" section at the end should be prosified. But I had better see if Dr Eehbahgum is willing to participate before making any changes. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead needs development. WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have expanded the lead to include aspects not previously included, while still keeping it relatively short. The article is now 73kb long on the crude count from the edit screen, and should not go much above that. I have turned the "exhibition" section into running prose. I have left the "new cemetary2 and "excavation history" sections for now, as they do fall naturally into sections, & I'm hoping to hear from the doctor. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Article is stable. There has been some minor IP vandalism, but not enough to justify protection. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• There is a rich use of helpful images, all of which have appropriate licence data. There are helpful captions on all the images, though some are quite long, and may need to be trimmed per WP:CAPTION. There is image squeezing in the Beowulf and Vendel section - see MOS:IMAGES. (Non GA:) Some images have been forced, and are quite large, and the quality of some images is not of a high standard - consideration could be given to improving and/or replacing some of the images - Deben tideway, the wide mounds and Mound 2 need attention. In general, some thought may be given to presenting the images in the article in a more aesthetically pleasing manner - alternating left and right is popular and looks good; though some people prefer a simple straight down the right side. Currently this article has a mix of both, and it looks untidy. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article's style and approach appears to be quite neutral. There are some claims in the lead that would benefit from citing for readers who are not aware of Sutton Hoo's importance - "primary importance", "outstanding art-historical and archaeological significance", "one of the most magnificent archaeological finds", "the ship-burial which commands the widest attention from tourists". While these statements may be cited in the body of the article (I haven't checked yet), many readers don't go beyond the lead if all they need is a quick 5 minute overview of Sutton Hoo, and so would want some immediate reassurance that these are indeed reliable facts. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Focus. There is more material on the ship burial than any other aspect, though that is appropriate as the ship burial is the key element. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • On reflection, the Ship-burial contents might be better dealt with in a spin-off article. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Major aspects. I feel that it is likely that all major aspects have been covered, though I'd like to do a bit more background reading to make sure. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial impressions are that this is an informative and helpful article, rich in detail, with few problems. Some tightening of prose and presentation is probably all that it needs. I will read it more carefully and give more detailed comments later. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On hold

There is much to like and admire about this article; however, the more I look at it the more difficulty I have with it. There is a fair amount of information and detail, though I find that the organisation and presentation of that information is not as clear and helpful as it could be. It is vague about the discovery and excavation of the ship burial; it doesn't give an appropriate and helpful history of excavations on the site; the prose style is not appropriate (or helpful) for the general reader of an encyclopedia; the presentation of the images makes the article look messy and cluttered; the sectioning also makes the article look cluttered, and doesn't aid flow and ease of reading; some of the detail in the Ship-burial section is too intricate - there is valuable information contained there, but it is not being brought forward. This on the purse, for example:

The purse, with ornamental lid covering a lost leather pouch, hung from the waist-belt. The lid consists of a kidney-shaped cellwork frame enclosing a sheet of horn, on which were mounted pairs of exquisite garnet cellwork plaques depicting predatory birds, wolves devouring men, geometric motifs, and a double panel showing horses or animals with interlaced extremities. The maker derived these images from the ornament of the Swedish-style helmets and shield-mounts. In his work they are transferred into the cellwork medium with dazzling technical and artistic virtuosity. These are therefore the work of a master-goldsmith of his age who had access to an East Anglian armoury containing the objects used as pattern sources. As an ensemble they enabled the patron to appear in an imperial persona, and expressed his authority and resources to do so.

Most of the important detail on the purse is already covered in Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial, and so a very brief, clear summary is all that is needed.

As there is much reliance on a single source I feel it appropriate to check out that source, so I have ordered Bruce-Mitford's The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, along with Green's book and John Preston's The Dig.

I am putting the review on hold until I have those books and done some background reading and checking of facts. This is likely to be at least two weeks. In the meantime things to consider and work on:

• Build lead per WP:Lead
• Adjust layout per WP:Layout
• Reduce captions per WP:Captions
• Tighten prose to reduce tendency to flowery and weasel language, and to bring out succinctly the important points
• Consider if current organisation of material is the most helpful - the Background and Surroundings sections appear to be covering similar ground. Be useful to get an early overview of the excavation history, then some detail on the major excavations, with perhaps a split out into a new article on the contents of the Ship-burial, merging Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial into that new article
• Consider improving or replacing some of the less helpful or less clear images, such as the two in background and Discovery

Please feel free to ping me on my talkpage or by email in regard to any of these issues, and also to nudge me if there have been developments, or it appears I am not paying attention. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dr Eebahgum here. I am as you kindly observe partly responsible for the shape and general content of the article in its present form but I don't feel that I own it in any way, and probably won't get involved in the present cleanup. I have been fairly happy with it and expect it to evolve, and I imagine that no-one will want to change it unless they really know they are improving, not corrupting, the sense. I have no doubt at all that heads much cleverer than mine could make a much better job of it than I did. But in case the article should suffer from inept editing, I don't feel able to be the policeman because I have already said what I wanted to say, and if someone else thinks it needs changing that's up to them. I'm not going to keep reverting things I don't like. To vary Jacquetta Hawkes - Wikipedia will get the article on Sutton Hoo that it deserves.

HOWEVER I note that you speak of reading John Preston's novel The Dig (novel) as if it were an historical source, and applying it here, and I very strongly urge you to do NO SUCH THING. Although it may be a very fine and delightful piece of work it should not be taken as an authority for history, but a pastiche of historical names and events interwoven with (and distinctly modified by) literary fantasy. The publishers seem to have (unkindly) travestied the author's intentions in this repect, in their publicity, much to their discredit IMHO. A work based exactly and ONLY on contemporary sources (and not on peoples's later recollections, and without fictional embroidery) is the booklet 'Sutton Hoo through the Rear-View Mirror', published by the Sutton Hoo Society, which is listed in the references.

So far as the 'primary published sources' are concerned for the site, you have the 1940 volume of Antiquity (journal) and also the original 1940 Charles Phillips excavation report: then the Bruce-Mitford 3 volumes in 4, 1975, 1978, 1983 i & ii: and lastly the big Martin Carver publication of 2005. Of course there are lots of other major important research volumes and articles, and lengthy sections of analysis, elsewhere over the past 70 years - in fact the whole development since of Anglo-Saxon archaeology and art-history has been reshaped around it - but these are the pillars. Angela Evans's 'Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial' is the best digest I think but pre-dates the 1980s-90s excavations.

When I was working on the article which has survived three years of tweaking as a useful statement, there was already an existing article and I tried to incorporate some phrases from that as I prefer to edit by assimilation than by annihilation. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and although there is no ownership of articles everyone should feel able to 'own' the content. I am not in favour of a 'Top Down' approach to what is a 'perfect article' and therefore cautious to say the least about the motivation for creating a 'good article' designation and what it means. That's one reason (of several) why I won't be participating in your process as of the present, and will probably not return to the article. The 'poetic flourishes' (i.e. slightly extravagant language) were probably mine but if you prefer antiseptic clarity you know what to do. Personally I dislike receiving information which is loaded with applied emotional charge, but equally there are times or subjects which seem to demand an expressive accentuation of their unique or surpassing character.

Best of luck with it: I hope you will seriously improve the article. Eebahgum (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have sent The Dig back to the library, and have now got the Bruce-Mitford and the Green. The Green in particular looks useful as a source for a general encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Extending to end of the month to give me a chance to get to grips with the books. SilkTork *^YES! 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delays. I have been busy on and off-Wiki. I will be finishing off the GA Review of Dusty Springfield over the next few days then I will return to this. I can be contacted at any time on my talkpage or by email. I haven't checked over what has been done since I last looked - I'll do that when I finish the Springfield article and can pay more attention to this. Hold extended again. SilkTork *^YES! 15:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not much has been done recently; I'm awaiting your final comments. but I may as well make some points now, before I forget them. I was unaware, until you mentioned it, of Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial, which dates from May this year, was uncategorized, and not even linked to from here. It's the editor's first and (so far) only article, so I won't be too rude about it, but it is not very well sourced and written, and actually contains surprisingly little of the information which is precisely expressed in the passage from this article you quote above. Careful and well-written descriptions are crucial in articles on art of this sort, where even a good photo leaves many unclear what they are looking at, and how to read the object, so whatever your issues are with the information "not being brought forward", I don't think I agree with them. Many people will whiz\ over such detailed descriptions, but many will (one hopes) actually read them in conjunction with the photo. Ideally, as the doctor says, we would have satellite articles dealing with objects in more depth, but with that exception, we still don't, & in that situation I think the balance of the article is fine, though of course there are always many ways to skin a cat.

I can't now remember what changes have been made to the images, but as they are I think they are fine. Only two of the captions are other than very short, and both for specific reasons. The two landscape shots, which knowing the site I find very evocative, are well-composed & of adequate quality; I think it is important to have them. The left/right placing seems fine given the short sections, need for some shots to face a certain way etc. The guideline never says that alternation should be rigid. I've improved the one area still with squeezed pictures, which is not easily solved, as the pictures are already small and next to the text describing them. That seems acceptable to me. If we removed more text the situation would be worse - ideally it should be added! Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• While the review is going well, could this be wrapped up over the next few days? This is one of two articles from June that are still under review at GAN. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the nudge Wizardman. SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I've closed the Dusty Springfield review, so I will now be able to concentrate on this one. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I'll start putting comments here. These may be random at first, and I'll organise them into sections later if needed. SilkTork *^YES! 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The first caption mentions the parallel between finds in Swedish barrows, particularly Vendel, and Sutton Hoo. The Bruce-Mitford handbook I have is the 1968 version which has no index so that will delay me in finding the right information, but luckily in this case there is a chapter devoted to the connection. There are also several mentions in the Charles Green book. This connection seems to be of some importance - indeed Bruce-Mitford says it has "special significance". Though there are other mentions of the Vendel connection in the article, I feel a section on the connection would be helpful, and that would also be the appropriate place to have an image with a caption pointing out the similarity of the goods found (perhaps with an example from Vendel if possible). The caption of the lead image might be more helpful in simply pointing out that the helmet was one of the objects found at Sutton Hoo - and to put it into perspective for the general reader it is appropriate to mention that it was restored, so the reader doesn't get the impression that the helmet was intact. If there is room, it might be appropriate to mention that it was restored by the metalwork expert Herbert Maryon (who should have a Wikipedia entry, if anyone is interested in creating one!). SilkTork *^YES! 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You will see there is plenty of detail on the Swedish connection lower down, including pics, leaving no room for these pics down there. Anyway they make striking lead images. Looking at the two lead images, I thought it was the caption to the 2nd that needed clarification, and the size increasing, so I've done this. I see from Carver, 1998, p.29 that Maryon's restroration/reconstruction "did not satisfy Bruce-Mitford", being in a "rather "coal-scuttle" style" & it was redone rather differently in 1970 (no names given), which is what the photos show. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the connection is discussed in the Beowulf and Vendel section. What are the advantages of discussing Beowulf in the same section as Vendel? I see the value of discussing both, and that both Vendel and Sutton Hoo provide useful illumination to students of Beowulf, though I wonder if it might be more helpful to have two sections - one on connection to other burial sites, such as Vendel, and one on how Sutton Hoo illuminates Beowulf. SilkTork *^YES! 10:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think dealing with the two connections together works well; there would have to be some repetition if they were handled separately, and there is a natural linkage between Beowulf and Scandinavia, as the article explains. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Captions. While the captions can be improved - that is part of the ongoing development of the article, and I feel they now comply with GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Layout

I'm becoming happier with the layout and related MoS issues. I'll leave the Lead to last, and will also then make a final check through of use of punctuation and bullet points, etc.

I have placed the second helmet in the Vendel section so a side by side comparison can be made, and also because when the contents list was hidden (and some people have it hidden as a default) the image would push down into the first section displacing the text and image there.

I have made a crude separation of Beowulf and the east Sweden graves - I will do some research on these matters so I can tidy, perhaps expand a bit more, and perhaps provide some accessible reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Is it right that no text of any length has been removed, but some images? On this arrangement it is clearer that "New gravefield" ought to go at the end, or higher up, keeping all the ship burial together. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Focus

I am concerned at the size of the ship-burial section compared to the whole of the article. At this point the article contains 7806 words of readable prose (not Wiki code or refs), of which 2666 are the ship-burial section, which is just over 1/3 of the article. Wikipedia:Article size does recommend breaking out sections using WP:Summary style when readable prose starts getting more than 6,000 words, or the printable version is more than 10 pages (this is 17 pages). I think a Sutton Hoo ship-burial article containing all the ship-burial section here (leaving behind a useful summary), with a brief Lead putting it in context, could be useful - and items from the burial could be dealt with in greater detail. I would think that Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial would be better off merged into such an article, as it contains only one paragraph of new material - the rest being lengthy context which is best dealt with in this article. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I had better repeat here what Wikipedia:Article size actually says, which is not what you say at all (except as regards the printed pages):

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

I suppose the guideline assumes there are no pictures at all, otherwise the prose size & printed size figures quoted seem very contradictory. Here the "useful summary" would have to be very long indeed, as it is the ship burial which makes Sutton Hoo really famous & it should certainly be given a large proportion of the article - a great number of readers will be initially unaware there is anything else at the site. Equally any article just on the ship burial would need more than "a brief lead". I quite agree (as does Dr. E) that the main individual items could and should have their own article(s), but with one iffy exception they don't. The section is of course divided into no fewer than 14 headed sub-sections with headers just in bold (certainly better than actual lower-level headings here I think) which certainly overcomes the issue of reading a solid block of prose which the MOS is also concerned with. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

<Interjection from interested editor> Agree with Johnbod that, as the ship burial is the best-known feature of Sutton Hoo, the weight it is given in the article is appropriate. i have always found the article's structure a bit odd though - I'm glad it has the attention of some experienced editors. Can i suggest the Ship Burial section be broken into two major subsections, called something like "Context" ("Ship", "Burial-chamber", "Position of the body" and "The mound") and "Artifacts" (everything else)? Just a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The "New gravefield" has now moved up to rejoin the other non-ship burial parts of the site. I've split it into "the burial" & "Objects found ..." Does that work? Really I think the Objects should start with the helmet & move outwards to the East & west walls, so what are now the first two "sections" should go to the end. People have now had to wait long enough before getting to the star finds. Does that seem sensible? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the ship-burial is the best known feature of Sutton Hoo and does warrant significant space. My concern however is that as currently set up the detail is a little excessive for the general reader who wishes to have an over-view of Sutton Hoo. The way we set up Wikipedia is that we create sub-articles for when readers wish to have more detail. Nearly 3,000 words of an 8,000 word article is perhaps a bit more overview than the general reader would want, though perhaps not enough for those who want more information. I'd like both a useful overview, and more detail, and a sub-article would provide that.

When information on the individual items grows enough, sub-articles can be broken out from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial article. I don't think that the Purse Cover from Sutton Hoo Burial article is really appropriate as a standalone because it only contains one paragraph of unique detail - but it would be inappropriate to bring that into this article as that would be adding more weight to the Ship-burial section.

I'd like to make clear that I am not advocating removing the information from Wikipedia, but looking at organising it in a manner that is most useful - a summary of the important points for those who would like to know what is significant about the ship-burial, and then closer detail for those who wish to know more (and this can sometimes be the same person - somebody who perhaps wants these questions answered: a) So what's important about the ship-burial? b) And what exactly was in the ship-burial?).

Johnbod, I'm not sure where I deviated from WP:Article size - your quote appears to match what I wrote. Have I missed something? The recommendation starts at 6,000 words, and this article is 7806 words. Average reading speeds and comprehension means that it would take between 30 and 45 minutes to read just the text (not check the sources) with a 70 - 80% comprehension, and a 35% short term retention. Reducing the ship-burial to a 600 word summary means that the article could be read between 20 and 30 minutes with an 80-85% comprehension and a 50% short term retention. In other words, by reducing the ship-burial to the essential points means that the average reader would actually learn more not less. And we could provide greater detail in a sub-article for those who wish to know more. It's a win-win situation. Which is why we do like to suggest that articles are sub-divided when the size starts to go over 6,000 words. Bear in mind: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read ;-) !

As the intention is that the Sutton Hoo ship-burial article would be a sub-article of this one, there wouldn't be a need to provide much context as readers will be going there from this one - however, a brief over-view is useful for readers who end up there directly. SilkTork *^YES! 09:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it again with bolding. The guideline says:

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

You said: "... Wikipedia:Article size does recommend breaking out sections using WP:Summary style when readable prose starts getting more than 6,000 words, ...." - a very different thing. In fact I'm sure most FAs are longer than this. Taking in mind Hamiltonstone's comment just above, I don't think "Reducing the ship-burial to a 600 word summary" is an option. If anything has to be moved off it should probably be either the history of the 1939-40 excavation, or the later excavations. Perhaps one could do Achaeological investigations at Sutton Hoo? But since the article is still at an acceptable size it is better to keep it as it is. Once you break out a sub-article you can't in any way assume that "readers will be going there from this one" - most won't, especially as links will typically go to the most specific article. How many readers actually bother to follow through to "main article" links anyway? Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Those who wish to read more detail. That's the idea, and it works. See Wikipedia:Summary style for a helpful overview - there are links there which point to other guidelines giving more information. It's your option if you wish to click on them to get more detail, and you may elect not to get more detail - though the links are there if you wish to follow them. As an example - the Kraków article has a number of sub-articles, and the number of hits each gets varies - Education in Kraków gets 200 hits a month, Local government gets 450, Culture in Kraków and Transport in Kraków both get around 1,000, while the Old Town gets 1,300. People decide for themselves what they want more information on. Bear in mind that people are coming to a general encyclopaedia for a general overview - if they wish for greater detail they will go to the main texts. We are not writing for experts, or for people who already know about the topic - we are writing for those who wish to get a reasonably quick general feel for the topic - though, of course, experts and those who already know they topic will read (and hopefully improve) the article. The lead will provide a very brief overview and the main body will provide more detail broken into sections, and for even greater detail we move to sub-articles. The system works well. (We don't have figures for how many people just read the lead, and it would be an interesting research topic, as there is a feeling that the majority of readers don't go beyond the lead - or will read the lead and selected sections.)

I will say that I am not 100% convinced that the Ship-burial needs a sub-article, but I am "concerned", and I feel the issue needs to be aired. Summary style is an integral way that Wikipedia works, and the general principle is that when an article is reaching a detail density (which will vary from article to article, with more technical articles requiring more frequent summary splits than easy to understand articles) we move some of the detail to a sub-article. The situation here is that I am concerned that the Ship-burial has reached a counter-productive detail density and so readers will skip over it and thus not get a general feel for the importance of the objects found there.

Please note that I am not just saying that this article is too long, but that the Ship-burial section is too detailed. Removing other material (though possibly quite valid in and of itself) does not address the issue of the detail density of the Ship-burial section. I am clearly not explaining myself well, and I apologise for that. Essentially I would rather we discussed the actual detail density of the Ship-burial section and the best way of dealing with it, rather than the general principle of summary style splitting. If I am still not clear, please let me know and I will spend a bit more time formulating an answer. SilkTork *^YES! 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being totally clear, but (a possibility you seem not to allow for) neither I nor Hamiltonstone, nor those who actually wrote the article, seem to agree with you. That is called not having consensus. You have been airing the issue for three months now. Is this review ever going to be finished? You have not responded to my point above on the three paragraphs you removed without discussion before, a proper edit summary, or mention here afterwards. Please do so. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Responded to Rædwald edit below, with extended comment on the role of a GA Reviewer. SilkTork *^YES! 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is the longest GA review I have been involved with, and there have been several reasons for that. Since starting this one I have opened and closed several others. So be it. SilkTork *^YES! 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• I like what has been done with the Ship-burial section, though I still have reservations. If I feel at the end that there is still a legitimate concern about the size of that section I will call in an independent second opinion - that is the usual process when people disagree locally. Please be reassured that I will not (cannot!) impose upon this article anything inappropriate, and where there is disagreement I am more than happy (indeed, encourage it warmly) to enter into discussion, and if that brings no consensus to seek an independent outside view. I hope all this reassures you. SilkTork *^YES! 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Raedwald

The Raedwald section looks very short now, & I can't locate the history around him. Have you cut the three paragraphs beginning: "During the later 6th century when the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms...", "In c 616 he was challenged by the Northumbrian ruler Æthelfrith,..." and "Rædwald did not establish unequivocal Christian rule,..."? I think you have, with the edit summary "(mostly layout - some MoS issues as well)"! [2]. Please do not do things like this! Being a GA reviewer is not a licence to make major changes to an article without consultation, or even leaving an adequate edit summary saying what you have done. You have never even mentioned this issue above. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise that the totality of that major edit was not clear enough. Yes, some material I felt was not relevant to this article was removed. I was going to place it in the Raedwald article, though when I clicked on that, I found it detailed enough. If you feel that the material is appropriate here then restoring it or opening a discussion about it is fine. Meantime, it is helpful that comments are made regarding the article rather than edit summaries or precise wording, as that keeps a positive working atmosphere. The role of GA Reviewer is not either a limited one nor an authoritative one. A GA Reviewer is another editor. The position is one where people agree to have an independent editor look over an article to apply the GA criteria. While looking over an article that person has the same editing responsibilities as any other editor, and GA guidelines and common sense recommend that if the reviewer spots an error or an area that can be improved that the reviewer goes ahead and does that. The actions are the same as any other editor and are open to the same questions and discussions as if the edit was made by any other editor. That a person is a reviewer accords that person with no special authority - it is an agreed position designed to ensure independence of viewpoint. Any suggestion I make or edit I make is open to question, and I hope I have never made a statement that implied a firm directive but have been making observations and suggestions that I feel will improve the article and bring it closer to GA status, and have welcomed discussion. A GA Reviewer is not someone who has to be obeyed or pleased - the GA Criteria are what decides GA status, and application of the criteria to an article is sometimes (often!) open to interpretation. When I have nominated an article and I feel the Reviewer is straying from GA criteria I will direct the Reviewer back to the criteria, and I am quite happy when nominators do that with me. The process is, as far as I am concerned, an open and co-operative one. The aim of those involved being the same thing - to improve readability, accuracy and trustworthiness of the article under examination. SilkTork *^YES! 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put them back, as I think the section is certainly too short without them. I have added a little to clarify the relevance, but more can be done here. Much of the debate about the identity of the person buried centres on the possible meaning of the "sceptre" and other possible signs and symbols of royalty & overlordship, but this is not very clear at present. Some of the intricacies can probably go. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the relevance of Raedwald's history to the article. Information about why he is considered to be the probable king, and any scholarly speculation on other possible kings would be worthwhile (and more on that would be welcome), but the personal history appears to me to be colouring rather than encyclopaedic. A link to the article about Raedwald seems to me to be sufficient. I have concerns about focus in other areas of the article - the detail on the surroundings/location is questionable, as is the detail on the discovery and on the ship-burial itself. The selection of material can be difficult on some articles. The more important, complex and less clearly defined a topic, the more difficult it is to get the scope and focus right. For example, a standard album release of a band is easier to write a Good Article on than the band's most important and acclaimed album, which is in turn easier than an article on the band itself, which in turn is easier than the musical genre the band play. It is also more difficult when doing a GA review to look at cutting material than adding it. If we had arrived at this article without the detail that we already have, I doubt we would be feeling that it needed more personal detail on Raedwald, more personal detail on Basil Brown, such as that his "smallholding had failed four years earlier", etc. The temptation when editing an article is to put in little bits of information as discovered. My place when reviewing an article for GA is to look at those little bits and independently give a judgement as to if the bits are valuable encyclopaedic detail or local colouring that might be considered "unnecessary detail" as in 3 (a) of the GA criteria. WP:DETAIL gives a bit more background. On the whole people are more tolerant of extended detail when it is interesting and there are no sub or parent articles to which the detail can be moved. I am more tolerant of background detail on the location as I don't see a useful article which can be linked to which will provide the same detail, but I less tolerant of potential "unnecessary detail" when there is an article which can be (and is already) linked. I understand that you feel strongly about this. Would you be able to explain for me why you feel the background history is needed in this article, and why the link is not sufficient. SilkTork *^YES! 12:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Review update

The review has wandered on for a considerable time now. I think an update on the points, and a drawing of a line would be useful. So....

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I don't think the prose is a big and obvious fail, as it is mainly clear, and lack of clarity in places can be down to organisation. However, it is questionable in places, and would benefit from an overhaul. The Discovery section is written as a story, and it's not clear from the opening of that section what is being discussed. "Who is Edith May Pretty?" might be a reasonable question. If written from the point of view of a general reader who has no information about Sutton Hoo and would like to know about the important details of the discovery, how would you write it? A simple opening statement might be - "The finds at Sutton Hoo were uncovered by a local archaeologist, Basil Brown, in two digs, one in 1938 and one in 1939, on land belonging to Edith May Pretty." There are also occasional phrases which are written in terms of literary style rather than of conveying information - "...sheds light on a period of English history which is on the margin between myth, legend and historical documentation" might be better as "...sheds light on a period of English history sometimes termed the Dark Ages because of the lack of written records." While possibly not by itself a big fail, the prose quality when linked with a number of other GA criteria which are questionable would lead to a fail.

The question "Who is Edith May Pretty?" is immediately answered in the rest of the sentence, and of course there is a link! The story of the discovery is a very famous one, & I think deserves a treatment like this, which many readers will be looking for. Carver (1998), once he gets going a very dry professional archaeologist, begins his book with "Chapter 1; Mrs Pretty Digs Up a Ship", and a far longer treatment in the same vein. I think I have pointed out already that Dark Ages is not a respectable archaeological or historical term, and I think that the phrase you complain of is actually more precise and informative than you allow. This is not really a prose issue, but a content one. Otherwise, after 3 months to review, you need to be giving examples. Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The article is decently organised. The images are helpful and attractive. There is one place where images squash the text (the lyre and the shields), though this is not specifically against GA criteria. The two areas where the article is not meeting GA criteria for MoS, are 1) the WP:Lead: The lead should be able to stand alone as a summary of the main points of the topic, should mention the main sections in the article, and not introduce anything which is not then covered in the article. The lead should have more details regarding the location, the discovery, the archaeological history, the connections with Beowulf and the similarities with Vendel and other east Sweden burials, for example. And 2) WP:PEACOCK words are used a little too much - "this magnificent funeral", "the magnificent sword", "dazzling technical and artistic virtuosity", "extremely rare", etc. Praise for the quality of the workmanship is appropriate, though is better done moderately.

I have trimmed some of these & will be happy to consider other specific examples, but "extremely rare" is a plain (if not precise) quantitative statement which is either right or wrong (once one has decided how few is "rare"). I don't actually agree that "praise ... is better done moderately" in cases like this; to do so can be to mislead, and it would be very wrong to write an article on this subject without the use of some superlatives. The question is, can they be referenced? Here they can be. It might be better just to use quotes in some places, though this will lead to no diminution in "peacockery". Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are references, and there is a reference section and an extensive bibliography

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are statement which might be questioned and which don't have inline citations. (Example:"On present evidence, this magnificent funeral appears to have been the final occasion upon which the Sutton Hoo cemetery was used for its original purpose." There is a sense that much of the uncited statements are implied elsewhere so this may not be a fail.

Referenced that one. Other examples? Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   I've not come across anything which has given me alarm in my background reading. I feel that the information given here is factual and accurate to the sources, and the sources used have been high quality.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article wanders into unnecessary or extensive detail in places - the location, the discovery, the ship-burial and the probable buried king. The necessity of having all the detail in this one article is disputed in some places (the ship-burial and the probable buried king), though overall the effect is that the article could be trimmed and readers directed elsewhere for extra detail.

I have trimmed at various places, and removed the remaining repetitions, also adding a bit to clarify the relevance of the "royal" section to the interpretation of the burial. The location section is certainly full, but there is no other relevant article & I think a proper consideration of the context of the site (a true rarity in WP) is the professional way to go. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully empathise with your view that context is valuable. That has to be balanced though with accessibility, which can mean condensing down to the essential facts for the general reader. Always to be borne in mind is that this is not an academic paper, an essay, a magazine article, etc, but an entry in a general encyclopaedia and we must write for that purpose; which, if we write regularly for other forms, means adjusting our style and approach. That Wikipedia does not always provide on the spot context may be due to an awareness that Wikipedia's audience are not scholarly, but the average man in the street, whose patience is limited. SilkTork *^YES! 09:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

SilkTork *^YES! 12:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Areas to work on:

1. Work through prose, making the information more clear as detailed above.
2. Improve WP:Lead as indicated above.
3. Trim WP:Peacock words as indicated above.
4. Reduce material in first two sections (Location and Archaeology) and consider trimming Ship-burial and Rædwald as the probable buried king as mentioned above and in previous GA Review section.
5. Consider if any statements would benefit from an incline citation.

I think this is quite doable in seven days. I think we are close to completing this review! I'll check back in seven days and see how things are going, and as time allows will pitch in myself.

As always, the above recommendations are open to discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Final assessment

The review has to close today as it has gone on too long. I am hoping that any issues left can be sorted today, and I will feel comfortable passing it as meeting GA criteria. Even if I feel the article doesn't quite meet my interpretation of GA criteria the actual review process has been useful as I feel the attention the article has got has been of benefit. SilkTork *^YES! 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to delay this final assessment until tomorrow as I have to go out. SilkTork *^YES! 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article has made significant progress, and recent activity has been very promising. I am still left, however, with several concerns, and I need to now consider how much my concerns impact on the GA criteria.

• There are mentions of other burial grounds, formation of a monastery, Dommoc, etc. I assume this is to build up a picture of the important activity in the area in the period before, during and shortly after the burials on the site. However, the meaning is not made clear for the general reader. SilkTork *^YES! 11:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"These river estuaries formed paths of entry to East Anglia during the continental migrations to Britain of the 5th and 6th centuries, following the end of Roman imperial rule, and their control was important both in Roman and Anglo-Saxon times." seems clear enough to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Earlier sources say that no body was found in the ship-burial mound, though soil analyses in 1967 indicates that there was a body, but it fully decayed. This is briefly and poorly mentioned in the Position of the body section, though not made clear enough in other places of the article where the burial is discussed. According to the British Museum there are four likely kings, and opinion is divided between Raedwald and Sigeberht of East Anglia - Sigeberht is only briefly mentioned, while much is made of Raedwald. The British Museum also cautions that the burial may not have been a king, and other sources do spend some time exploring the alternatives and explaining why conclusions, such as Raedwald, are reached. I feel this article urges a little too much that Raedwald is the buried person, and doesn't allow enough space either for the alternatives, nor why conclusions were reached. SilkTork *^YES! 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I find this a puzzling comment, as you cut most of the material relevant here! The arguably POV section header is also yours. But then I find this whole review strange. The question is discussed much more thoroughly in the talk page section that has happened in the course of this review. By the "British Museum" I presume you mean Bruce-Mitford, or is it the online stuff now? The article now mentions both Sigeberht and Eorpwald as candidates, the latter former being the preferred candidate of David M. Wilson, an Anglo-Saxon specialist & former Director of the BM. These are in fact the only individuals that afaik are actually supported as candidates by any real body of recent scholarly opinion; nor do I think that anyone actually now believes that the burial was non-royal, as opposed to being able to be certain that it was royal. Older discussions were very much clouded by assumptions that have now been revised as to the date of the coins, absence of a body and so on. You seem to be taking a very different attitude here to elsewhere in the review as to open up these issues in any clear way would require a considerable amount of the detail that you urge is cut on frankly more important, and knowable, issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've just changed the title of the body section to "The body in the ship-burial", and put in an introductory paragraph to put it into context. I will close this review as a fail, as time has run out and there is work still to be done. I have continuing doubts, and uncover more each time I work on the article. The options open are to continue working in the direction indicated in this review and to resubmit for another GA review; if unhappy with the result of the review, and if feeling that at this point it does meet the GA Criteria, to open a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; or to nominate for a new GA Review anyway as different reviewers have different approaches, and somebody else may be more sympathetic and understanding of the existing condition of the article and feel it either does meet GA criteria or will be able to work harmoniously toward a different conclusion to the one I have reached. SilkTork *^YES! 14:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The rewrite of the Archaeology section has tipped the balance in favour of the prose being acceptable for GA standards.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead has been developed and improved recently, and is heading in the right direction - though still needs to cover more clearly and fully all aspects of Sutton Hoo. And I still have concerns regarding superlatives.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There is still the occasional phrase for which a reader might wish the security of an inline source - "It lay beneath the exact spot where Mrs Pretty had told him to dig a year previously." / "The ritual is sufficiently standardised to indicate that it reflects formal status rather than sentimental attachment." / "It is thought that a gallows stood on Mound 5 ... and that these were victims of judicial execution." These are examples, not an exhaustive list. I am not firmly convinced that GA criteria requires them to be cited; however I have a doubt, and it might be as well to cite them, and others like them, as part of ongoing editing.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I have ongoing concerns about getting the balance of detail right

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is a possibility that the article is rather inclined toward Bruce-Mitford's views. I bring it up here as a discussion point rather than anything certain. Other sources do reference him, so his work on Sutton Hoo is significant; though there have been other studies, and a greater awareness of wider and alternative views might be helpful

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I would like to continue to help this through to GA status as I feel it is close to being achieved, but I must now stand down as reviewer - especially as I am about to go to France for 10 days and so will have limited access to the internet (and probably even less access to petrol! SilkTork *^YES! 14:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why has it taken you over 3 1/2 months to come up with the examples and comments above, which are all new? Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)