Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holy Thorn Reliquary/archive1

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].

---

Holy Thorn Reliquary

Holy Thorn Reliquary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Holy Thorn Reliquary/archive1

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because believe it meets the criteria. It has been kindly read by the British Museum curator who said nice things about it, and forwarded it to the author of the main source. The reliquary is a "star" item in an exhibition opening in late June, so I am not going to wait for further comments before nominating. I also hope to have some better detail photos shortly. The article is coming up to its first anniversary, and has been very stable. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Blue, an important enamel colour in other works, is almost entirely absent here, perhaps so as not to overshadow the large sapphires." - source for important and reasoning?

Still looking for this - it's in one of them. "Important" hardly needs a ref, as blue is the dominant colour in medieval enamels, usually used for the background of Limoges enamel, while also being very expensive to use in painting. It could be referenced from another work though. I'm meeting the curator later this week & will ask about this the case below. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Other techniques are also used with a great degree of skill; the large figures on the rear are chased, with St Michael's wings being represented on the flat surface of the door in delicate pointillé work. Other elements were cast in small moulds, and most of the visible gold has been burnished to give a smooth and shining appearance." - source?

Done

• "might have had a custom-made carrying case" - source?

No source, but this is an understatement. If, as Cherry postulates, it was a "travelling" piece, it's not the sort of thing you would chuck on the back of a cart, or in a chest full of other stuff. I've added the link to the Royal Gold Cup's case, but this doesn't mention the reliquary. Maybe the exhibition catalogue will have something on cases. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note 2: retrieval date? All website sources should have publishers and accessdates

Done

• Note 4: dash in page range, and why no quotes on title?

Sorry, which title? I can't see any in the note. I don't think databases are normally treated as works and italicised.

• Note 6: which British Museum ref, and pages for the other two?

Re-done

• All page ranges should use endashes

All now done (I think)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first

Done

• Italicize publications like The Independent

Done

• Overall formatting is rather inconsistent - for example, compare notes 10 and 11. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, AFAICS. Thanks for these points. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

MacGregor has published a book based on his radio programs. Chapter 66 is on the reliquary. It might be useful to add this to the Further reading:

MacGregor, Neil (2010), A History of the World in 100 Objects, London: Allen Lane, pp. 424–430, ISBN 978-1-846-14413-4. Aa77zz (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this is just the talk all over again. The transcript & the recording are still available on the 100 Objects website that is in External links - I have thought of adding some peacocky stuff from there & may yet do so, but other than that there is nothing much that adds to the more detailed sources; as usual much of it is on the context. I would normally not add something like that to FR, but when I see a copy I will check it out. Personally I find it disappointing if something is in FR & when you check it out it doesn't really give anything new. The situation is similar with Robinson, James. Masterpieces of Medieval Art, 2008, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128153, which I have, & gives it a short page. The UK catalogue for the upcoming exhibition is not quite published yet, but I have higher hopes of that, though the BM haven't said there's anything that needs to be added from it so far. Actually looking at MacGregor again, I think I will add some of the fruitier quotes to the lead - I think the article was mostly written before this came out. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Added one quote; might add more later. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now brought Robinson in a bit too. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The article is well written and I enjoyed reading it. However I'm unhappy with the sentence in the lead stating that the reliquary was featured in a radio program broadcast by the BBC. I notice that this information is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I believe that the article would be improved if the sentence were deleted from the lead and the information added to the end of the article. Aa77zz (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The "100 Objects", and the quote from it I have now added after you prompted me to look at the transcript again, are really there to demonstrate the significance of the object, & so belong in the lead. I think many or most of the "100 objects" with articles mention it in the lead - maybe that should change after a year or two, but for now the series is still a big deal I think. Having said it once, there's really nothing to add below. The sentence about the exhibition should probably be taken lower down once it is over, but we often add major exhibitions to leads while they are on. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• The article refers to "Berry" in the same way as Smith would be used to refer to John Smith. This appears a bit strange to me. I wouldn't expect the current Prince of Wales to be referred to as "Wales". The article on John, Duke of Berry also uses "Berry" but I wonder whether this is usual in formal English. The article by Wendy Stein avoids this usage. Aa77zz (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think it normal when a duke is being talked about a lot, after an initial mention of the full name; for example "Norfolk", "Wellington", "Marlborough", "Alba", "Vendome" and other famous dukes & nobles. Princes of Wales or kings are different. When it comes to royal dukes, for example "Cumberland" (son of George II) would also be normal, and "York", "Lancaster" "Gloucester" etc are very often used, especially of just this period. Cherry uses just "Jean" in detailed sections after the full name is given, Snyder mostly "the duke" but sometimes "Berry", other sources "Jean de Berry" and so on. His full name and title are given 3 times in the article, and all the uses of "Berry" follow soon after one of these. There were I think 9 "Berry"s, all but one in the "Patron" section, which would I think lose flow if they all had "the duc de.." added. I've changed the single one higher up. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy with the responses to my queries. This is an excellent article on an important object and deserves to be promoted. Aa77zz (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Support with just a few niggles

• Lead:
  • Any real need to link "pearls" in the first paragraph of the lead?
• History:
  • "The date was previously thought to be some time between 1401 and 1410.." date of what? We've mentioned two other artworks in the sentence directly before. Is this date for all the artworks? Or just one?
  • "...but it was not realised that he had returned to the Imperial collections a copy of the reliquary instead of the original." Seems awkward to me... perhaps rephrase?
• Description:
  • Really no need to link enamel, rock crystal, pearls, rubies and sapphires here. Nor lead in a later sentence.
  • "Few such pieces from the period use pure gold throughout, even at the level of royal patronage; most use cheaper silver-gilt for the structural framework." - can we connect the dots here and explicitly state that it is entirely made of gold? We never actually state this - "made of gold" implies that it doesn't have silver-gilt, but a full out statement might be better for non-artistic types.
  • "The jewels, which would have been keenly appreciated by contemporary viewers, consist of two large sapphires, one above God the Father at the very top of the reliquary, where it may have represented heaven..." implies that there are only two jewels. Perhaps "include" instead of "consist"?
• Front face:
  • No need to link "rainbow"
• Patron:
  • "...had a custom-made carrying case like that for the Royal Gold Cup, which came to the British Museum along with the cup." I think you mean "along with the reliquary."? I'm unclear how the cup could have come along with itself...

now "a custom-made carrying case like that for the Royal Gold Cup, in which the cup came to the British Museum."

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. All re-written etc except enamel and rock cystal, which certainly need links. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments: Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• "an art dealer, Solomon Weiniger" > probably don't need the "an" because we know who he is

We certainly need it in British English, & I would suggest also in more formal American English, though I know this journalese omission of articles is gradually taking over there (and has done on WP)

Okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence is hard to follow: "John, Duke of Berry (1340–1416), brother of King Charles V of France, had this reliquary made to house a single thorn, a few years before he commissioned his famous Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, and a few after he commissioned the Royal Gold Cup, also in the British Museum."

Changed

• John Cherry's book (2010) > why the 2010 in parenthesis? Maybe write something like "In 2010, John Cherry wrote [title of book] .... "

Changed to "John Cherry's book of 2010 suggests" though I'm not sure this is better. The parentheses are certainly standard for scientific articles. The title of the book is "The Holy Thorn Reliquary" which I don't want to add again.

It's probably okay as it was. It looked odd to me is all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• italicize foreign language terms - i.e joyaux

Done - I think there was just this one.

• Check the linking for God the Father > should it be on the first occurrence?

Changed.

• "In the fake in Vienna" > suggest a reword

Why? It is a fake. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant the repetition of "in", though I don't really see a way around it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! "In the Vienna fake" doesn't quite sound right, but I think I may being rewriting this paragraph anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Louis IX is in the "History" and "Patron" sections. I think the version in the "Patron" section is better, but realize it's important to have in the "History" section. I'm not certain that it should be in both sections, but at the moment don't have any suggestions how to fix this.

It's only half a line in the earlier section, & I think best left.

Again, I think I agree because I don't see a way around it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly irrelevant question - do we have an image of the forgery? It would be interesting to see it.

Cherry has colour pics of both sides, but nothing useable here. I'm sure it's not on display in Vienna. The extra enamel is very garish. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article. It reminded me of the Royal Gold Cup - but of course commissioned by the same person. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these points! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment I'm very close to supporting this article, but there is an issue with capitalisation. "Crown of Thorns" appears capped and lc, as does Archangel Michael. The "resurrection of the dead" surely should be capped, and in "instruments of the Passion" why is the last word capped but not the first. There may be others, since I didn't search systematically, just noted a few as I read. Please go through all the items of Christian devotion and ensure that the formatting is consistent and fits normal usage. Don't assume Wikipedia is right, it's not RS, and the crown of thorns article manages to have its title formatted differently from the fist line of text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The capitalization of some of these things is rather variable. I have gone through and made some changes, well 2 anyway - "Crown of Thorns" +1, "Instruments of the Passion", though only some are shown, which may be why I had it that way. The physical "Crown of Thorns" relic is capitalized; the representation of it that the angels in the reliquary hold over Christ is not - I think this is correct. It says " On the left door is the archangel Saint Michael..." with two links, which is not the same as "Archangel Michael", at least in English; I don't have strong views on standardizing the names, but it is good to have both links. I still haven't capitalized "resurrection of the dead", which doesn't quite seem enough of a standard term, unlike "Last Judgement". A google search I think confirms this as typical usage, although more references are talking about the general concept than the specific occasion shown here - in so far as there is a difference. For example this weighty tome leaves it uncapitalized. But I'm happy to hear further comments on these points. I should add that I'm aware that both "Duke of.." (first appearances) and "duc de.." are used, which is aimed to avoid anyone not being sure what a "duc" is. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't much mind how it's capitalised, as long as I'm sure it's been thought through. Reassured now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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