Talk:Royal Gold Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Royal Gold Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 10, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 23, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
July 2, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
British Museum project (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 

Issues - notes to self[edit]

Date, Secular or not., wt of a marc, figure on tripod, Fastes, Read. When was tripod/ upper tier of pearls last recorded? How was tint applied? Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Please do not consolidate or change the format of the references for now. I hope to get page numbers for those so far only seen online, & to see the items in further reading, which may add some citations here. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lightbown[edit]

Johnbod, if you are working off a scan and dont have the page numbers, the thing to do is to move the full citation from the biblo and merge all the refs. Its acceptable to ref a range of pages. I can easily do this if you wish. Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I expect to have the page numbers in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
added now. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks[edit]

  • It has been described as "the one surviving royal magnificence of the International Gothic age",[1] and to Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, "of all the princely jewels and gold ....
"to" Thomas Hoving? if it was to him, then the New York ought to be followed by "as" and by the name of the describer. Should it be "by" Thomas Hoving?
I can't see how "as" would help; Hoving gives the 2nd quote. As a stand-alone sentence it reads: "To Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, "of all the princely jewels and gold that have come down to us, this is the most spectacular—and that includes the great royal treasures."[2] - "to" meaning, "in the opinion of". Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the verb "has been described" which apears to own both the "as" and the "to". If the "described" doesn't own the "to" then the "to" relates to the verb within the quotation "this is the most spectacular....".
It is grammatically correct, I suppose, but not "elegant prose".... Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone has added "and according to Thomas Hoving," which I think solves it. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ..typically robust .....
Typical of what? Probably typical of medieval vessels of that period or something... but it should be stated.
Maybe, or just drop "typically". Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Amandajm (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection?[edit]

This article is PC protected, and semi protected? And it went back and forth between three admins? I'm confused as to what's going on here. Should it be semi, PC, or both? And if it is both, why don't we just go full, because that's almost what it is anyway. --Fbifriday (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

Does anyone have, or know where to find the original language texts of the rim inscription and the inventory manuscript both mentioned in the article? Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1391 inventory (with some others) is in Jenny Stratford, & I think Dalton & probably Read; maybe elsewhere - it is in medieval French. The 1610 band, in Latin, is in Dalton I think, & possibly others, like Read. You can pretty much read it off the BM photos. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I somehow missed the inscription in the photos. I managed to read enough to google it up. Here is the original text, if you are interested. Thanks. --Iustinus (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the end of the 1391 entry, from Cherry 25. If you find the rest, please notify the French article now being translated, But I can't pick it up on Google. ""...Et donna ledit hanap et couvercle au Roy Monseigneur De Berry au voyage de Touraine l'an 91." Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Google Books gives us the end of the previous sentence as well: "...de Nostre-Dame en un soleil sur rouge clair, et sont les trois piedz dudit trepied de iij serpens volans...." Note that that source gives one more sentence, which may be part of the same description: "Et poise ledit pied, iij m. v oz. et demi." 'And the aforementioned foot (="stand"?) weighs 3 m(?), 5 ounces and a half.' --Iustinus (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Aha, by then searching on the flying serpents you get the lot [1] With patience one could read the whole book. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done. --Iustinus (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To Johnbod on the third sentence[edit]

What information is contained in the second clause of the third sentence that is not contained in the second and fourth sentences? That the cup is an example of late medieval French plate is contained in the second sentence; that it is an outstanding survival is contained in the fourth sentence. If the third sentence is saying something different, then it needs a citation. A minor point: the two clauses of the second sentence are unrelated to each other except that they both deal with the cup. Bootboy41 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is in the lead, where only the quotes are cited (see FAC somewhere); it is returned to and cited below. I don't understand the last point, & don't agree with the first. "That the cup is an example of late medieval French plate" is NOT contained in the second sentence (and you miss "secular" - an issue discussed later on), and the fourth sentence is much less specific & has a different angle. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I accept your claim that only quotes should have citations in the lead. However, I note that your incorporation of a detailed description in the lead, as discussed in the next section, leads you to violate this rule. That the cup "was made for the French royal family at the end of the 14th century" means that it is late medieval, but it does not mean that it is French. If it is "Italianate" as Lightbown asserts, it may in fact be Italian. Your disagreement seems more concerned with the word "plate", which is not used in the second sentence. Webster's 3rd New International defines plate as "domestic hollow ware (as dishes, flagons, cups) of gold or silver." That we are dealing with a gold cup is obvious from the title; that it is domestic (secular) is a matter of dispute as described in the article. To me "one surviving royal magnificence" is more specific than "outstanding surviving example". So, I still think that the lead would be better off without the second clause of the third sentence, but I won't dispute it further. The last point was only that normally when a sentence consists to two independent clauses, they should be related to each other. But with English usage, as with Wikipedia editing, there are no hard and fast rules. Bootboy41 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) On rereading I see why you didn't understand the last point: I wrote "the two clauses of the second sentence" when I meant "the two clauses of the third sentence". Bootboy41 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no suggestion it is actually Italian; Lightbown is clear it is made in Paris. For the rest I will continue to consider improvements once this hectic period is over. Thanks for your comments. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead comments[edit]

I reacted early on to the rather high level of detail about the dimensions of the cup in the lead. When I read through the entire article, I noticed that this information is really only found in the lead. Since the lead is supposed to be an article summary, I would not expect to be informed about the exact size of an object of art right now. Perhaps in one sentence but not in exact centimeters and direct quotes. Shouldn't there be a section or sub-section dedicated to this in the article itself? The inscription on the custom case is also only found in the lead.

Also, there's very little about the history of the cup in the lead, something I was actually expecting. Could some be added?

Otherwise, a nicely written, highly details and well researched art history article.

Peter Isotalo 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! As touched on in the FAC, I did originally have a lead, followed by a "description" section, pretty much as you suggest, which is indeed the usual way I'd write an article on an object. This is probably visible in early post-sandbox states. The trouble was you either repeated most of the lead almost immediately, or didn't have enough in the lead. In the same way the lead now gives the skeleton of the provenance; once you go beyond that you have to get into a lot more detail, and for the early history a great deal of qualification is needed - pre the 1391 inventory nothing is known for sure. The situation is similar for the iconography, & the other sections. So in the end I combined lead & description, which indeed means the dimensions, case & a couple of other things only appear in the lead. This arrangement having passed FAC, I'm loath to alter it now. The article is now perhaps closer to the layout of a typical exhibition catalogue than the classic WP layout, but I think it is the best solution. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to repetition, these days I try to go against my own opinion as an editor in my own articles; to casual readers repetition is nothing but a boon. As sole primary contributor, however, the choice here is clearly yours.
Keep up the good work!
Peter Isotalo 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Inscription[edit]

Minor observation: I don't see an explicit translation of the inscription on the case:

YHE.SUS.O.MARYA.O.MARYA YHE SUS

Probably valuable to include that if the inscription is going to be mentioned. It obviously repeats the names of Jesus and Mary. But I'm not sure what the "O" in that context is supposed to mean (my knowledge of conventions for Latin inscriptions is quite poor). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The BM doesn't give one, & none of the other sources mention the box - I imagine it is just the vocative "o", though this seems a slightly odd thing to put on a carrying box. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Stats note[edit]

The Grocs stats have several missing days, including the main page day, but total 13,190 views for July 2010. The stats on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages for the same month show 31,225. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Image sizes[edit]

Any reason why we would hard-code the image sizes? WP:IMGSIZE seems quite clear that we allow logged-in users to set their own sizes. --John (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As WP:IMGSIZE points out "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". In this case the article is talking about specific points of the visual design of article subject - this requires more than merely a thumbnail. The larger images are not merely decoration, the reader is being asked to note specific details that are not clear in thumbnail sizes. This is the case for all readers, not merely those that log in and have special settings. Wittylama 08:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I don't agree with your point; surely if the details are important, we should prepare a cropped image rather than hard-coding the images? I look at WP on three monitors. These hard-codes look ok on the biggest screen, but they look awful on smaller sizes. Could you restore the non-image edits you reverted? --John (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
What - putting back the outdated exhibition information you insisted on keeping, and removing two perfectly good uses of "however" - a classic symptom of over-active tool-assisted WP copyediting? Apart from the exhibition info the rest is I think unchanged since it passed a lengthy FAC. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, so you haven't read what we were talking about, don't understand what "however" means, don't know what "tool-assisted" means... no wonder the article is looking so good with you looking after it! Do they let you use scissors yet at your school, or is that next year you get to do that? --John (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeh, yeh. WL has dealt with the image issue, on which I could say plenty more, & I dealt with the "non-image edits" you mentioned. I shall remove the silly pointy tag. Tee, hee, I just searched for "however" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no you haven't. We are still hosting an "at some point" on this "featured article" (now that's got to be fucking laugh of the decade!) What were you saying about "time wasters"? If you are always this much of a twat, no wonder your time gets wasted. I'll leave you to your girlish giggling; they'll be round with your meds soon no doubt. Oh, and, tee hee, your searching skills are as poor as your reading comprehension; it's right there. The shortcut is WP:EDITORIAL. --John (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"at some point" succinctly suggests that no one knows when this was, which is the case. My point was that the hallowed guideline itself uses "however", perfectly correctly, & showing up the self-appointed style experts who remove every use of the word. But I think it's bedtime now. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK kids, that's quite enough of that. I don't know if you two have "history" arguing with each other elsewhere on-wiki but it seems clear you're now both playing the man instead of playing the ball. I will politely request you both stop arguing over this issue and leave the contested sections (images and words) as the were at the status they were upon successfully passing FA nomination. That's the best I can achieve by way of a neutral status quo without merely taking a side of one or the other. I hope that will be an acceptable (if not desirable) conclusion to this. Sincerely, Wittylama 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)