Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heraldry/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Heraldry

This article was recently updated, trimmed, and cited by Boven. I think that he went a long way to making this a featured article. It covers a broad topic, but does so pretty well. It also is well referenced now.--Forlornandshorn 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator.--Forlornandshorn 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The big bits of white space in the text are extremely off-putting, perhaps you can fiddle with the layout a bit to stop it happening. 149.155.96.5 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I had hoped that the article would get a bit more of a review by its regular contributors, but I think that it is much better than it was. A couple of points have been raised on the talk page, and the white space is a problem. The problem seems to lie in two tall, narrow image. If someone with competence in computers could merge those into one image, that might solve the problem.--dave-- 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment White space fixed, at least on my screen. —Celithemis 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportGood looking article.Reddyrov
  • Looks really good, but one of the paragraphs needs cleaning up:
(quote) Crests are often not displayed at all in French and Mediterranean heraldry, but are very important in Germany. A shield with three or more crested helms is usually German. Certain types of crests, too, are typically German, such as a pair of horns or a tall hat in the tinctures of the shield."(unquote)
1) First problem is that this sentence generally identifies the latter features as "German". The system of multiple crests might might very well have originated in Germany (I have no information about this), but multiple crests it is also very much present in Danish heraldry, and I would expect also in Sweden and Norway. E.g. the arms of the Counts of Danneskiold-Løwendal had five crests, and so did the Counts Reventlow and many others. Examples exist at least back to the 1600s (e.g. the arms of Baron Juel of Rysensteen.) In the Danish case, this was most often the result of marriages, but some arms used multiple crests from the beginning, e.g. both the arms of Count Tromp of Sølvisborg (1676), Count Rantzau (1671), Count Griffenfeld (1679) and Count Struensee (1771) were granted featuring three crests. In some examples this seems to have been used in order to reuse a similar but not identical arms previously granted to another branch of the same family, e.g. if the main line of a family had died out and a junior branch (or perhaps a person married into the family) desired to carry the same arms.
2) A crest consisting of two horns is extemely common in Danish heraldry, and dates back at least to the 1300s (e.g. the arms of Tå from Tjørnelunde (1382), Gås in Jutland (1259) and the Danish arms in Wappenboek Gelre, see Image:55verso Dannebrog 1370.jpg). In Danish such horns are known as vesselhorn (both singular and plural). In some cases both horns carried three "eyes" from the feathers of a peacock, or - later - three peacock feathers each, but I don't know if this is typically Danish or not. Anyway, these trends were not only German. On the other hand, I would very much like to see some information about coat of arms using borders, e.g. as in Portuguese and Spanish heraldry. This tradition is almost completely non-existant in Scandinavia. I just noticed that in Danish heraldry from the 1700s, a number of noble families somehow included either one or more Danish flag(s) or a lion holding such a flag, e.g. Moltke, Luckner, Løvendal, Rysensteen, Roepstorff, Fuchs, Jarlsberg, von Barner, and Reichswein. Most often as (part of) the crest. My source for these examples is Sven Tito Achen (1973), Danske adelsvåbener. En heraldisk nøgle, Copenhagen:Politikens Forlag, ISBN 87-567-1777-6
3) A few references for the "National styles" section would be nice.
4) Colours should be written consistently, in one paragraph they are capitalized, in the next they are not.
5) Should we update the image tag of the arms of Baroness Thatcher, stating that it is (also) fair use in this article?

It also would be nice if "fur" wasn't a redlink, but all of these are minor points and the content generally looks solid, so I'll happily Support. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Object; the lead needs to follow WP:LEAD (2-3 developed paragraphs that summarize the content of the entire article), and there aren't enough citations—the last two sections are entirely unreferenced. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, for the beginning and the end. Needs a proper lead, and ends with unsourced weasel-worded statements like "Many more people see heraldry as a part of their national, and even personal, heritage, as well as a manifestation of civic and national pride." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Intro is too short. A good FA intro can take a long time to develop, but it needs to start by summarizing all the sections in a manner that recapitulates the logic behind the organization of the article. Hard to describe, but the current two sentences are most definitely not this. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. Poor lead+the last section of the article and some other paragraphs on other sections are uncitated.--Yannismarou 10:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. The recent rewrite is a big improvement, but would like to see some refs in the "National styles" and "Modern heraldry" sections. Gimmetrow 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: the section on 'Origins and history' is disappointingly brief for an entry on what is essentially a historical subject; there's not enough on the meaning and function of heraldry ie. its role in defining nobility, usage in battle, and as a way of showing status; I'd also like to see more on the restriction of the usage of heraldry over time: did it become more widely used, and less tied to notions of dynastic nobility, with social change?. S 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conclusion?:I think it's pretty safe to assume that this article has not yet reached the stage of FA. Perhaps an admin can close this FAC and we can begin implementing the suggestions to make it better.--dave-- 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)