Wikipedia:Featured article review/Book of Kells/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:21, 15 March 2008.

[edit] Book of Kells

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, User:Dsmdgold

This is an outstanding well-written article. However, it has only a handful of inline citations. This was not much of an issue when it was approved as a featured article in 2005, but as I understand, it's absolutely essential today. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the primary author of this article. (Thank you for your characterization of it, by the way.) I've been half expecting this for over a year. When this article was nominated, the inline citation feature was very poorly implemented. I no longer have easy access to the materials needed to provide inline citation for this article, as I borrowed all of them via inter-library loan. Nor will I be able to work on this in this next few weeks. If someone has access to a university library, the most important sources were, in order,: Henry, Francoise. The Book of Kells, Henderson, George. From Durrow to Kells: the Insular Gospel-books, 650–800, and Calkins, Robert G. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access to the above sources, but may be of some help. -- SECisek (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can get these and would be happy to help. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have Calkins, and other relevant books (see my user page). I will see what I can do, but I expect Henry is needed really. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the Henry, but not Henderson. I picked some other stuff up too while I was at it, but I don't think I can put much time into it until this evening at the earliest. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd better go first with Henry - Calkins tends to ref back to her. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, then. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead could do with some work if anybody feels like tackling it. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can take a crack at it after I've put in the Henry refs. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, yeah. That's the very first thing I noticed. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've reworked the lead now and would welcome any feedback. I've tried to make it more concise without eliminating any of the essential information. Please let me know what you think. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be a good deal longer (and I'm a lead minimalist). See WP:LEAD - this is a long article, so the lead should be close to the 4 para recommended max here I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) This is the first article of length that I've put any substantial work into, and I wasn't sure how long it should be. I'll get to work on expanding it. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the donkey work! Btw, if you saw the "citations" para of WP:LEAD, I would personally think this is a case where no citations may be necessary in the lead, so long as everything is cited when it is expanded lower down, unless anyone disagrees. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm enjoying working on this a lot - I wish I had more time for it! :) I agree that the lead doesn't need citations; I think that the references below should cover things pretty well. My plans are 1) expand the lead; 2) do some overall light copyediting; 3) finish standardising the notes and references; and 4) do a final check for citations. Thanks again for your help and feedback. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Update: I've begun adding citations. Does anyone have access to In Search of Ancient Ireland: The Origins of the Irish from Neolithic Times to the Coming of the English? The reference is missing a page number. I should be able to find it on Monday, but if anyone has the information now, that would be great. In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Page numbers for Henry would be better too. She is in the References section, so just "Henry:99" or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The page number(s) are there, just before the ISBN. I can shorten the reference so they are more prominent, if you think that would be preferable. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is on page 150? Since the full details (less ISBN link etc) are in the sources, they aren't needed in Notes also. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it looks wierd, it really all is on 150. I'll shorten the citation as you suggest. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have been doing a great job here, thanks. For the contents section, if I remember correctly, Calkins has a complete list of contents in an appendix. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I can do that. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've been plugging away at adding Henry references, but I'm at a point now -- the Decoration section -- where Calkins may be the better source. I'll keep working on it, but perhaps Johnbod may want to take a look at it? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok - will do. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got everything out of Calkins & Nordenfalk now - some bits like on the pigments and the details are similar in calkins, but have extra info he doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check through Henry again this evening then. I'll straighten out the references formatting for the notes and sources so we don't have unneccessary duplication. I can work on the lead and do some general copyediting as well, if no one objects. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been a huge amount of work here in the last two weeks; I'm a keep in lieu of an more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Ceoil. I'm working on expanding the lead should have something ready to post in an hour or two. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are very nearly there, but perhaps need more art-critical stuff on why the book is so famous as art. I have added a bit to the lead and below, but we could use more. The usual WP puritanical attitude to any subjective etc appreciation may have held people back, but it is easy enough to reference. I'd be incline to move the lead sentence beginning "The lettering..." on the pigments etc down below, or shorten it in the lead. Nordenfalk says the scribes and the artists of at least the small text page decorations were the same people. If Henry agrees, this should go in. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to pull together a short paragraph for the lead that summarizes the manuscript's importance without either being overly repetitive or requiring substantial additions to the main body of the text. There's so much that can be written about the Book that it's hard to reduce it to a few short sentences. Regarding the sentence on lettering and pigments, it may be best for now to shorten it in the lead and move the details to the main article. I had planned on adding a paragraph describing them, but until that happens, we should probably move it. I'll check on the scribes and artists; I also have more recent sources who have identified a fourth scribe, and this information should be added too. I haven't had a lot of time this weekend, but I should be able to add more tomorrow. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great - I think we also need a brief mention of the importance of the book as an Irish national symbol, and (surely) Ireland's best known national treasure etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can with the lead, unless you have any specific points that I've overlooked. Just let me know. I moved the bit on the pigments (as you saw) and made the lead more general. Regarding the scribes and artists, Henry implies they may be the same in some places, i.e. she discusses the lettering and the figures as though they were done by the same hand, she seems hesitant to commit to their being the same people. Other sources I've looked at so far seem to be generally ambivalent on the matter. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't think of anything else to do -except we might have room for a new pic next to the TOC, with the longer lead; there's always one more thing! Better leave the artist/scribe issue. Well done! Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and thanks for the feedback along the way! Kafka Liz (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep issues addressed; now 54 citations (I make it), a far better lead & various other improvements. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)*
• Keep I concur with Johnbod. The issues initially raised have been addressed. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The quality of the prose alone is something to be proud of. There is always more to be done, no article is perfect, but please don't demote this one.--GrahamColm^Talk 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work, everyone! Closing. Marskell (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.