Talk:Ring of Pietroassa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ring of Pietroassa has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the Ancient Germanic studies WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is covered by the Runic studies work group.

This article uses British english dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Contents

[edit] Transliteration vs. transcription

It may be useful to apply conventional formatting in order to distiguish between transliterations of the runes into Latin letters and the transcription of the runes into Gothic. This is a short explanation:

xxx| |xxx means that the runes are separated by an ornamentation.
xxy| |yxx means that one rune (represented by y here) is separated as representing two different phonemes.
xxx(y)xxx means that one of the runes (y) is difficult to read and so it is put between parentheses.
xxx---xxx means that one or several of the runes have been lost due to damage but they have no clue which runes.
xxx[y]xxx means that scholars agree or know that rune [y] is missing. If a runic inscription has been lost after its documentation, the entire text is put between brackets.
xxxx ÷ xxx means that scholars don't know what the rune represented by ÷ signifies.

For readers who are used to this convention, it may be confusing if the transcription doesn't follow this model. Transcriptions would then be in italics.--Berig (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source material for transcriptions, transliterations, etc.

[edit] Taylor

Taylor (1879:7) renders the inscription in the Elder Futhark, as ᚷᚢᛏᚨᚾᛁᛟᚹᛁ ᚺᚨᛁᛚᚨᚷ. (I say 'renders' because of minor variations between images of the characters as they appear on the ring and the forms of the graphemes he uses to represent them.) He does not give a transliteration, presumably as he gives a transliteration table on pg. 4.

[edit] Diculescu

Diculescu (1923:Kiel Databank) has the "reading" gutaniowihailag and the "interpretation" Gutan[ī] Iowi hailag. I'm not sure which is to be considered the "transliteration" and which the "transcription". (Berig, help me out here.) Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have identified them correctly with your use of italics and bolding.--Berig (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Düwel

Düwel (2001:31-32) has the "reading" (Lesung) gutaniowihailag and the "interpretation" (Deutung) Gutanī ō[þal] wī[h] hailag. Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krause

Krause (1966:Kiel Databank) has the "reading" gutani(o) (wi)hailag and the "interpretation" Gutanī (ō)[þal] (wī)h hailag. It remains unclear to me why the parens have been put around the (wī) and not the (h), but this is essentially the same as that found in Düwel (2001). Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have identified what are transcriptions in the article. I assume that it is pure transcription in the cases where they indicate long vowels.--Berig (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 1st review

These are just first development thoughts from a new pair of eyes to the article and the subject. They are here for you to just think about it. Being mentioned does not necessarily mean they need to be changed, just that they need to be thought about so if they remain they do so because the writers want them to be there; and they are in no particular order - sorry people. If I feel the article needs further GA requirements I will cover that in my next review.

1. opening lead paragraph: quite short for a article of this length. It does though contain the pertinent facts, but according to Wikipedia:Lead_section has far too many wikilinks. If the descriptions are repeated in the article it maybe worth wikilink there, to make the lead a simple statement that someone could read and go on further having found out the level of information they wanted. The use of words and phases such as unclear / seem to indicate / leading to the assumption / have been proposed / Despite the lack of consensus / etc. throughout the article reads as if there is continual vigorous scientific debate about the subject. This is fine and as it should be but I think that a paragraph in the lead saying for example there is much debate about, .. ongoing research into... etc would prepare the reader for the examples of words and phases I have given above. Therefor the article makes clear that such and such is known as facts about the ring and such and such is conjecture, and such is still being discussed.

I (with the help of Bloodofox) have tried to expand the lead as requested. The actual text of the article (barring citations and references) is ca. 17,000, so I'm thinking two paragraphs should do the job. Regarding there being "far too many wikilinks" in the lead: I was unaware that there is a limit on the number of wikilinks that can appear in a lead. Could you please point to the specific section of Wikipedia:Lead_section which specifies how many can appear? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

2. wikilink gold

Done. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

3. wikilink AD and maybe insert a "one off" comparison with CE for readers

AD has been wikilinked, but I'm not sure what you mean by a "one off comparison" with CE. Could you clarify this please? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

4. ...with relative certainty... meaning what, it can be read or it cannot be.

(1) The only thing that would give us absolute certainty would be the original inscription itself. The best thing we have is a recently republished picture taken in the 19th century. Therefore, we can be relatively certain about the nature of the character in question - as certain as a 19th century picture allows us to be.
(2) It is not yet known what position those scholars who previously proposed alternate readings will take after Mees' 2004 (re-)publication. Theoretically, it would be possible for some of them to dispute the photograph, thus I felt making the statement 'relative' would be most prudent.
If you have a specific formulation in mind that you feel would be more appropriate, please do mention it. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

5. ...indigenous origin seems unlikely... Can this not be clearly linked to the following statement about Taylor, my concern is that you "make" what could be quite a controversial statement which upon 1st reading has no referenced proof.

I have changed the statement to reflect the fact more clearly. The sentence is intended as an introduction to the paragraph that follows it - which does give the specific justification for the claim. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Roman Emperor Valens in 369. - No AD or CE after the date dating should be consistant, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Done. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

7. photograph of the Arundel Society is to be taken as a guide: why can it not be taken as a guide?

(See 4 above). Would "taking" be a better formulation? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

8. Inscription: I would have found a key to the layout and format of the script useful, why some words in brackets and italic and some not. I know there are conventions on such subjects but a reader looking at this out of interest or for information might like me struggle a bit. This request may actually make the section to cumbersome but I am pointing out what I experienced as a first time reader to the article and the subject. It is for discussion not a demand.

This is entirely understandable. Berig and I both worked on getting the transcriptions and transliterations into an acceptable format (see our discussion at the top of this page with his 'key'). I am almost tempted to start an article on conventions in runic transliteration/transcription, or ask Berig to start one, so that people can refer to it (much like they do for things like IPA). Additional comment from Berig would perhaps be helpful here. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The fault is mainly mine who wanted a distinction between transliteration (i.e. the rendering of the runes as Latin letters) and transcription (i.e. what Gothic words the runes are thought to represent). It's runological convention to show transliterations in bold and transcriptions in italics.--Berig (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

9. references:[1] and [2] not working. Maybe a good idea to say what language a website is in e.g. Looijenga, Tineke link.

Fixed. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting and knowledgeable article about a subject I knew unaware of. It does what a wiki article should do, informs. Thanks. Edmund Patrick ( conferwork) 09:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for choosing to review this article. :) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 2nd review

  • Point 1 ...Could you please point to the specific section of Wikipedia:Lead_section which specifies how many can appear? ...
it does not say exactly how many wikilinks can be in the lead, but the pertinent point is mentioned under Establish context in the lines ... It is best to use as few links as possible before the bolded title, to avoid overwhelming the reader. The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence. Readers knowing nothing at all about the article's subject should immediately find the answer to 'What is it?' or 'Who is he/she?'...

My concerns over this were the vision of a comparatively high number of blue wikilinks in what was the 1st paragraph; these have been answered in many ways by the expansion of the lead (which I will say has been very well done) therefor the section is not predominately blue wikilinks anymore.

  • Point 3 BCE and CE are being used more and more often, not necessarily for the right reasons IMO but; so if you wished the first date could be written as ... between 250 and 400 AD. OR written as ... between CE 250 and 400. In part it becomes an acknowledgement that there are two naming conventions in existence. It is not imperative.
Finding it to be a good idea, I changed AD to CE following the MoS on dates. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Point 4 I am afraid I do not have some wonderful phases to hand, and if the reasoning behind such words were put into the article it would make the thing unreadable! This is just a thought either a note or reference which could say say something along the lines of (in this example) ....with relative certainty. ... / note / This information is solely based upon a recently republished picture taken in the 19th century. The note then supports and explains why it is "only" with relative certainty. Existing note 13 is a fine example.
The note has been expanded to explain the situation regarding the photograph. Hopefully this will help clarify things without going into too much unnecessary detail. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Point 8 reading the editors replies make the whole thing clearer to me. Cannot a variation of Berig's statement ...It's runological convention to show transliterations in bold and transcriptions in italics.... actually be put at the beginning of this section, with wikilinks to transcriptions and transliterations so that the general reader is not only learning about the ring but also about a convention when researching the subject of runic inscriptions, and more importantly they can see what they are looking at.
Berig has started an article on Runic transliteration and transcription which should, when finished, offer the reader with sufficient information - not only for this article, but also for numerous others. I have added a dablink to this article at the head of the Inscription section. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My one major concern has been answered in many ways by the expanded lead. What is left is this: the article is about an object of which there are known facts and many highly probable ones all the way to some exploratory thoughts. The expanded lead has prepared the reader for these discussions within the article. I would like to see some form of more detailed note section ( not necessarily that many more notes) so that the reader can understand why. So to continue the example above, the reason we can be relatively certain because this point is based upon a republished 19th century photograph. To hopefully clarify further: note 2 in the article ... and the nature of the lost character can be established with relative certainty.[2] ... links to ... For more on the early history of the find, see Steiner-Welz (2005:170-175) ... why would I look there if I could. What does Steiner-Welz say, that the character is XXX because of YYY. If so a mention of that would be helpful. If the note is about the theft, partial destruction of the ring then that needs to be said. I do hope I am making myself clear, if not just ask, do not be concerned. Along this line can you explain your thinking about why you have notes sections referenced to the article and a reference section that lists possible sources for further research.
I hope I addressed this issue above. To clarify, Steiner-Welz is really a reference for the entire paragraph, which gives detailed information on the history of the find which would have been too much for this article. Without the (new) ref related to the photo, it probably was a bit misleading. Thanks for pointing that out. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an informative article which does get a simple factual subject, alongside complicated research and theories about the subject across very well. The hardest part of any article in wikipedia is (IMHO) the duel purpose of being informative to a very high level to a general reader, both at the sametime!

Many thanks for the fine tuning, (which is all this article needs as far as I can see at the moment) any concerns, thoughts please let me know. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your positive feedback and constructive criticism. The article is all the better for it. If I've missed anything, don't hesitate to contact me. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 3rd review

just a few thoughts, the article is as far as I am concerned ready for the final review. These below I have listed after going through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and re-reading it. Yet again not in order editors I am sorry but trying to work on that.

  • wikilink sacral to sacred, it is a word that is not often seen.
Done. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

hoard is wikiliked twice: intro and origins and (votive hoard, is linked to a particular point in hoard) would using the word cache instead in one ot two places change the meaning of the sentence(s) as hoard is used many times. I know the article is about a hoard, I am asking the impossible!

The double-link has been removed. I have done some rephrasing to minimize the frequency of 'hoard' - but, yes, it is about a 'hoard', which is a technical term, and thus hard to avoid. Further suggestions are welcome. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CE did not go directly to common era, new links are always worth a check as to where they end up. It went to CE. Corrected now.
Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • just checking: The language chosen is american english?
I apologize in advance: I know my style swings back and forth, but yes, I American English was my choice. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Conversions

Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units should generally be provided. There are two exceptions: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked; look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Conversions and maybe do as it recommends - convert the 1st one. I agree unless it is very important it would make the article difficult to read to convert all.

Done. I chose to go with Imperial units and metric in parens. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • when using the word ...typological... do you mean Typology (archaeology) if so with so many possible meanings it would be best to wikilink it.
Good idea. Done. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ...Though this theory has been largely ignored, later research, notably that of Looijenga (1997), has observed that all of the remaining objects in the hoard possess a "definite ceremonial character"... does this mean that the theory HAD been ignored but is now gaining some credence? If so maybe the wording needs to be changed to reflect that.
The fact is, Taylor's work has 'slipped through the cracks' to a large degree, as he published this as part of a theory on the origin of the runes in general, and not simply on the ring. Looijenga is not making a reference to Taylor's theory, but she is making a reference to the premise upon which Taylor's argument is based. The current wording was chosen to avoid making any kind of OR-mistakes, as well as to avoid giving the impression that Taylor's work is currently being discussed. I am, therefore, reluctant to change it, except to perhaps eliminate "Though this theory has been largely ignored,..." and simply begin the statement with "Later research, notably...". Would you find that more appropriate? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now heres a hard one: Each of the ? in the Inscription section leads to a different rune, and although the recognisable letter between the / / is different is there a way of making it clear to a "non - runic" person that the ? are different wikilinks.

what about ᛟ /o/ - [[Odal (rune)|ᛟ /o/]]. Just a thought (and quite a bit of work). Or does it not fit into a convention of sorts. It does make clear that the whole thing is different E.G. ᛟ /o/ and ᛃ /j/. That's it no more I promise (well hopefully) Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The links have been changed as requested. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review - Final

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is an excellent piece of work.Hopefully the article is stronger for all the effort you the editors have put in.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

One more thing, take a look at the GA page - see if there is an article there you would like to review. You can get assistance if necessary. More importantly: I learnt a lot from this article, some of which I will forget, but I now know a lot more about the skills and culture of these people in their times, society and place. Thank you. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 16:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for all your help with the article! —Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Checklist - worth completing; check all spelling for american english version, be consistent. As soon as internet copies of any of the book references come on line add them to the article. The reader that wishes to can then go further. These I meant to put into the review but accidentally removed them before saving. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The spelling has now been checked for American English. It should be uniform now. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think European English could and should be used in articles on things European.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Berig, if you have your browser set up for Brit. English (I assume you are using FireFox), you are welcome to revert and then go through it once. Before my last edit, most of it was British. Note: If you go for British, please switch around the lb. and kg. reference under Origin. Thanks. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict: ::: with that I agree but it is not a rule and not a requirement for GA. It is up to the original author if all else is equal. If it is changed (and personally I do hope so) it would not affect the GA status. I would though try to do most of it in one go though, so as not to have the mixture. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually fine by me if it's in American English, now that some effort has been put into making the language more consistent. I misunderstood and thought that American English was a requirement for GA, but I understand that I was wrong.--Berig (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No change it if you wish, as I say I would prefer it. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
English isn't my native language, so I don't think I'm the right person for it. If I tend to write in British English, it's only because I've studied in England.--Berig (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a preference either way, and since we're the only ones working on this article at the moment, I went ahead and did a copy-edit for British English. It should be fine now. :) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I was going to volunteer but my computer got into a bit of a strop. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :).--Berig (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)