From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| ??? |
Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale. |
[edit] Symbolism
- "it involves symbolism not seen in Wessex". This is unnecessarily mysterious. What symbolism?
- "It parallels the early Rongères bowl, drawing itself from Central European sources although found in eastern France, but also with the lenticular boss found on the Migdale 'spacer-plate' and the Melfort, Argyll bronze armlets." These objects are not as familiar as the Mona Lisa. "Parallels" is too general to convey information.
(The footnotes aren't working: the easiest system to use is <ref></ref>.) --Wetman (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Interesting article but I wonder if it could be more extensively wikified. Also, following Wetman's comments, the refs could do with some work (i.e. use inline citations) else it's hard to establish what (if anything) is Original Research. Dick G (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copy vio issues
The article is ripping off parts of the British Museum's article on the cape; rewrite is needed in affected sections. Zidel333 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Had a go at sorting. What do you think ?81.129.129.124 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the OR tag as all the claims in the disputed sections are all in Clarke et al. or Taylor. I've provided citations. I haven't got access to the other sources quoted but will see if I can get hold of them. I've had a go at rewriting the bits Wetman didn't like for clarity but have probably failed miserably !!!81.129.129.124 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC) PS not sure if I've done the refs right. I copied what was already there. Can someone check?81.129.129.124 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
