Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1

Corleck Head

Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As promised -- I hope this lot is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its use probably continued through the early Christian period into early modern celebrations of the Lughnasadh, a Gaelic pagan harvest festival.: We usually reckon "Early Modern" to be c. 1485 – c. 1688 or so in British history. Do I read rightly that it was used during that time period? Similarly, with "pagan": unless we're saying that a non-Christian community existed at that time, we need to say something more mealy-mouthed like "a harvest festival originally of pre-Christian origin" ("pagan" is something of a dirty word in Late Antique scholarship, since it would have meant nothing to the people whom it described, and lumps together a hugely heterogeneous religious world).
Reworded as a "a pre-Christian harvest festival that continued into the modern period". In this instance pre-cristian means mythological kings or first peoples from c 1447—1407 BC. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians assume they were hidden during the Early Middle Ages: this doesn't seem to fit with the dates established by the previous comment.

Addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a century later, it came to national attention in 1937 : do we need the almost a century later? Likewise, where it is usually on display: is that going to be a surprise to many readers?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck, with three faces.: not sure this is quite right. Tricephalic, strictly, means having three heads, and I don't think there's any indication that this skull would originally have had two siblings. If we simply mean "three-faced", it's tautological, as we say that a bit later.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a tricephalic skull cut off before the neck ... The head cuts off just below the chin: seems a bit repetitious (this is all within three lines on my screen).

Trimmed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar but not identical in form and their enigmatic, complex expressions: consider cutting but not identical, which is implied (outside mathematics) by similar.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the embossed eyes are wide and round yet closely-set and seem to stare at the viewer: this isn't quite grammatical. Easy fix first: the hyphen in closely-set needs to go (MOS:HYPHEN): we only hyphenate compounds when they're used in apposition with a noun (his close-set eyes), and the Wikipedia MoS doesn't hyphenate those with -ly verbs in any case. We also have a bit of a garden-path sentence here. Suggest either bracketing (yet closely set) or, probably better, taking a breath: yet closely-set, and they seem to stare at the viewer.
Done as per your suggestion Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeologists disagree on whether it: restate the subject in a new paragraph.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hole under its base suggests it may have been intended to be placed on top of a pedestal, likely on a tenon (a joint connecting two pieces of material): the "likely" is a bit misleading here, since the two parts are totally linked: if there was no tenon, the hole would have no relevance to whether it would be on top of a pedestal. Suggest something like The hole in its base suggests that it may have been intended to be connected via a tenon joint to the top of a pedestal. I think this would also remove the need for the long gloss on "tenon", which becomes obvious in context.
Most surviving iconic—that is, representational as opposed to abstract—prehistoric Irish sculptures: assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. Struck per Sawyer777 below, though perhaps it's worth a note to clarify that chronological boundary, as it goes so much later than it does in most other areas of European history? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other tricephalic and bicephalic idols include the "Lustymore" figure in Caldragh Cemetery: is it still there?
Yes, it originates from the nearby Lustymore Island, but was moved.[1] Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the late-19th-century tendency to associate objects with a mythical or a late-19th-century Celtic Revival viewpoint: I'm not totally sure what this means, if I'm honest.
lol. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archaeological evidence indicates that Corleck Hill ... was once known as "the pulse of Ireland": this surely comes from literary evidence rather than archaeological?
Yes and changed. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"drawn away ... [revealing] a cruciform shaped chamber ... the stones from the mound were used to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as Corleck Ghost House.": this is quite a long quotation. Any reason not to paraphrase it? If nothing else, we could thereby remove the tautology of cruciform shaped (which should be hyphenated anyway).

Yikes; paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a small contemporary spherical stone head from the nearby townlands of Corravilla, and the Corraghy Heads, also in the National Museum of Ireland.: given that the elements in this list are quite lengthy, a serial comma as indicated would be helpful. As we've already mentioned the Corraghy Heads, perhaps better not to gloss/introduce them here.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number 'three' seems: from what I can see on Google Books, the overwhelming form is simply the number three seems.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Triple-"mother-goddesses" : I don't think we want the first hyphen here, and probably not the second either. Hyphenating into quote marks is a bit of an odd look.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genii Cuucullati: This is Latin, so should be in a lang template. Can we translate it too?
Its in Gaulish derived from Latin (maybe from 'genii loci but that's outside scope. Not sure we have a template for Gauilsh. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the other way around -- a Latin term that's got a Gaulish one hammered into it? Genii is a pretty distinctively/uniquely Latin word, and the morphology/inflection of Cuucullati (specifically, the -ati, "having-been-verbed" suffix) is definitely Latinate rather than Celtic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooded Spirits article says "The name CucuIlātus is a derivative of Gaulish cucullos, meaning 'hood' (cf. bardo-cucullus 'bard's hood'), whose etymology remains uncertain. Cucullos is the source of Latin cucullus and Old French cogole (via the Latin feminine form cuculla; cf. modern cagoule). The Old Irish cochaIl ('monk's hood'), Cornish cugol, Breton cougoul, and Welsh kwcwIl are loanwords from Latin."

I don't want to go too deep into this here, so have simplified the image caption as Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Hooded Spirits. Housesteads Roman Fort, Northumberland, England. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works well. Incidentally, I read that as saying it's a Latin derivative, just like chivalrous is a derivative of the French chevalier, but is an English word rather than a French one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as with the Boa Island figures: we haven't actually introduced these. Are they the same as (or a superset of) the Lustymore figure mentioned further up?
Have clarified and corrected this.... two figure: the Dreenan Figure (also known as the Janus Stone) and the slightly less interesting Lustymore Man. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the Boa Island figures and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography and represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future, or in cosmological terms, the upper-world, the underworld and the middle-world.: this may not be your problem, per se, but there are two claims here, and one is much easier to wear than the other. I can accept "these objects were common" as an inference from "we find loads of these things", but I need a bit more convincing as to how we can tell anything about omniscient gods or a tripartite view of the cosmos.
Who knows really, but they are in probability, and the sources go along that life. Have added the word "assumed". Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure we can join these ideas in the way we have, though I don't dispute that most scholars believe these things about Celtic religion. I've made a small edit here (including a grammar CE) which I think fixes the problem and I hope will be uncontroversial: it now reads From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that both multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) or multi-faced idols were a common part of their iconography; they are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future. Please do revert if that misses the point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: isn't this what we said earlier about a tenon, only now we seem to have promoted it to a certainty from being a conjecture the last time around?
Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three-headed altar thought to depict the god Lugus, found Reims, France in 1852: in Reims, surely? Comma after France per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early 3rd century AD depiction of the Genii Cucullati.: needs an italicising lang template. This caption itself needs a full stop at the end, as it has one in the middle. The Boa Island one, however, needs its full stop removed.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The modern consensus, as articulated by Ross: I don't think we can really hold up a 60-year-old source as "the modern consensus". If someone else has endorsed Ross as still representing the communis opinio, fine, but we need to cite them as well.
Source from 2013 added, but Ross' view is generally accepted. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classical Greek and Roman sources mention that Celtic peoples practised headhunting and used the severed heads of their enemies as war trophies: I mean, yes, but they have all sorts of reasons for doing so -- the same sources mention that the Nile once flowed from west to east and that the Ethiopians value iron above gold. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated here: we can still use this information, but we need to be alert to the sort of evidence we're actually dealing with, and the idea that this might not be a face-value factual observation.

Yes, and this is exactly why have started Celtic stone idols - heavy, heavy lifting for an article on a single object. Will update shortly on progress. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is Celts living in Great Britain and Ireland: comma after is.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval Irish legends tell of severed heads coming back to life when they are placed on standing stones or pillars: unless the legends say that all heads do this, I would cut they are to make clear that we mean specific heads.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Roman and Insular accounts: what accounts are these? We haven't talked about Roman accounts yet (I assume you mean Caesar/Tacitus here?), and the only Insular narratives we've mentioned are mythical traditions, which are generally too fluid for the label "accounts".

Getting to this. The source mentions Livy Book X, 26, 11. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

obviously this isn't my FAC, but re assuming that the date up to 100 CE is correct, would that be considered "prehistoric" in Ireland? It certainly wouldn't in Great Britain. - yes, the prehistoric period in Ireland is typically considered to last until the arrival of Christianity, and therefore literacy, in the 4th-5th centuries. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- very helpful, thank you. I've struck and amended accordingly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, excellent points, have them sized up re-sources but will take about a week to address all. The main problem is that there is no parent article for the group (Celtic stone heads), so the article is doing a lot of heavy lifting re context. Your comments are all on point, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, having a bit of free time I was about to review this. But I am wary of doing so until the changes you have in hand are complete. Once these are complete, if you ping me I'll try to find the time to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, that would be great. I'm going to spin out some the article to a parent Celtic stone idols page, which will take some of the pressure off this article, which as I noted above and Jens below at times gets very general. It will reduce the article size by about 350 words, but make it more focused and tighter. Yes will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, have created Celtic stone idols, and trimmed this article, will tonight be asking for UC and Gog to revisit once the full merge is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Did you want me to take another look? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In cased missed....yes I do! Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Now (eventually!) done: below. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!! Some of these are from the two spin out articles...will be working through tonight :) Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

In the lead, we have The three faces seem to depict an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future.: this is now rather stronger than we have in the body, where it's a general statement (and an assumption) about the artefact class as a whole The types are assumed to have represented all-knowing and all-seeing gods, symbolising the unity of the past, present and future.
Have expanded on this with info from the Hill article. Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Lughnasadh, a pre-Christian harvest festival that in Corleck continued into the modern period: I don't see this in the body.

The body reads " From the early Christian period, it became a major site for the Lughnasadh, an ancient harvest festival celebrating the Celtic god Lugh, a warrior king and master craftsman of the Tuatha Dé Danann—one of the foundational Irish tribes in Irish mythology.[a][17] " Ceoil (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- that's compatible with the idea that the festival continued into the modern period, but it doesn't explicitly say it (William the Conqueror ruled England from 1066, but that doesn't mean that he's still in charge). At any rate, I think we need a source somewhere for the fact that the festival continued into the modern period in Corleck (and only in Corleck)? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the "modern" claim as although true via trad accounts, it's irrelevant for here. I don't dwell on the Lughnasadh aspect too much, but Ross believes that many of these objects were buried / hidden twice; in the early-Christian period for whatever reason, but were found in the early Galeic period and used during the Galeic festivals..often (again) fixed on poles.... To quote Ross "groups of them used to be kept in secret places such as we have seen for the Corleck heads, or buried in some safe sport, often beside a sacred well. They were then uncovered and played their own singular role, for example the Lughnasadh festival, often they must have been set up on some sacred mound. [several examples follow]." If was a gambling man, like later artefacts (ie early medieval Insular brooches, crosiers or chalices, it was buried / hidden again during the Viking or Norman invasions, but no sources that I have seen goe there. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, she was speaking generally above about various heads (such as ...the Corleck heads...for example the Lughnasadh festival), but many sources are specific about Corleck and the Lughnasadh elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When rediscovered, the sculpture was regarded as an insignificant local curiosity and for decades was placed on a farm gatepost. It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937: I think we need something in the middle here about when and how people came to reconsider it as something worth looking at. The National Museum has plenty of things in its collection that are regarded as nothing special (endless thousands of potsherds, for example).
The statement is now followed by "Its age and significance was realised in 1937 by the local historian Thomas J. Barron and the director of the National Museum of Ireland Adolf Mahr." Later we have "in a lecture to the Prehistoric Society that year, Mahr described the head as "certainly the most Gaulish looking sculpture of religious character ever found in Ireland".[11] He secured funding to acquire it for the museum". Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Corleck Head was unearthed around 1855 by the local farmer James Longmore while looking for stones to build a farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House": this reads as if he was intending for the farmhouse to become known as the Ghost House. Suggest "a farmhouse, later known colloquially as...".
It became known as that due to the head. But reworded. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On which, do we need the adjective local? Sounds to me like the sort of thing a journalist would put in without really thinking about it.

ouch :) Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeologists assumed the Corleck and Corraghy Heads once formed elements of a larger shrine: the past tense here implies that they no longer believe this.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

after Longmore had sold the lease: sequence of tenses: cut the had here (and consider a comma before after).

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He secured funding to acquire it for the museum: any idea of how much?

Not that I've seen. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come Sliabh is translated as "Hill" the first time but "Highland" the second? We also have a "Three" in the second translation, but no Trí in the Gaelic.
Its not worth getting into in this page, but planning an expansion on the Corleck Hill article. "Highland" removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation may clarify, but if the word "three" isn't actually part of the Gaelic (but perhaps that "the Gods" in this context always means these three gods), we should have it in square brackets: "Hill of the [Three] Gods" -- to be clear that it's an editorial explanation rather than a direct translation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads as "Corleck Hill's Irish name is Sliabh na Trí nDée (the "Hill of the Three Gods")" Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the capital on "Druidic", but will defer if a conscious decision.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When Barron asked him where the bowl was now, he said they had thrown it back "at once, fearing bad luck to have kept it: we're missing a close quote here. It's a lovely anecdote, though.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

representational as opposed to abstract: consider wikilinks here (e.g. to abstract art).
Mulled over this again, and going to leave it unlinked. The words iconic and aniconic have changed too many times over the centuries and seem to mean different things to different people. The article on Abstract art starts in 19th century Europe, and Aniconism is a different thing again. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
carved in the round (that is, fully three-dimensional without a side attached to a flat background) in low relief: I'm not sure this technically is low relief, since a relief is, by definition, not carved in the round, but rather projecting from a flat background. I think what you're getting at is that they're free-standing sculptures with relatively shallow carving?
Agree and now reads..."The majority consist of human heads carved in the round (that is, free-standing without a side attached to a flat background) with relatively shallow carving to depict the faces" Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Celtic scholar Anne Ross: was she a scholar of Celts, or a scholar who painted herself in woad?

Now just a "scholar" but its was mostly of Celtic studies.. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, this view has been challenged by the writer John Billingsley, who points out that there was a folk art revival of stone head carvings in the early modern period.: what does he write? If it's anything other than academic history/archaeology (in which case, he needs an epithet to match), why are we giving his views equal weight to those of experts?

Billingsle replaced with Ian Armit who is an academic, agrees, and is cited Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs of the "Dating" section seem to say the same thing twice: compare:
- Dating stone sculpture is difficult as techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used. According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the style of Corleck Head corresponds closely to other to other Iron Age anthropoid representations of the head [suggesting] a date in the late La Tène period". The Corleck Head is thus placed within this period based on stylistic similarities to contemporary works whose dating has been established
- Although many of the Ulster group of heads are believed to be pre-Christian, others have since been identified as either from the Early Middle Ages or examples of 17th- or 18th-century folk art. Thus modern archaeologists date such objects based on their resemblance to other known examples in the contemporary Northern European context.
Have rewritten the flow of the section. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a relatively large example of the type, being 33 cm (13 in) high and 22.5 cm (8.9 in) at its widest point: can we give any sense of comparison with other examples to justify "relatively large"?

The sources just say "large example", presumably because it is taller and wider than a typical human head (c. 22 cm x 18cm), and the others tend to be life-sized or smaller. 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Its faces are carved in low relief: I'm less upset with the use of low relief, but I think "shallowly" or similar is better.
"Embossed" links to Repoussé and chasing, which isn't right: that's specifically a metalworking technique. I must admit I'm not sure what embossed means in the context of stonework: it normally means that the piece has somehow been stamped, but that's clearly not the case here.
Replaced with "protruding", which yes is more correct. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1972, the archaeologist Etienn Rynne described it: we need to restate the antecedent, as we had all sorts of new subjects in the preceding sentences.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the exception of the c. 1000 – c. 400 BC Tandragee Idol from nearby County Armagh and the Ralaghan Idol, c. 1100 – c. 900 BC, found less than five miles east of Corleck Hill.: exceptions; there's two of them.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society that assimilated many external cultural influences: honestly, this seems a bit woolly to me. More precisely, though: in Ireland, or just in Corleck?

Clarified as Corleck. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-period Celts: Two things: one, did the Roman period happen in Ireland? Two, to what extent was there such thing as a "Celt" in the Roman period (or before, but that's another story)? I would need a lot of convincing that pre-Roman ethnic identities still existed in any meaningful way in (say) C2nd Gaul or Britannia, notwithstanding some rather dodgy early-medievalist attempts to make them return, Lazarus-like, in the C5th.
Re[phrased as to the Celtics. The phrase Roman period was only to set the period in a useful historical context for lay readers (i.e. the Roman occupation of England and Wales), and it is used by a lot of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure: we already talked about this a bit further up, but went in a slightly different direction. I'm not honestly seeing that this bit is really about its function, so would advise moving up to the previous section.
Obviously that it was intended to be periodically mounted is about its function, so have moved claims in the description sect to the function sect. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not totally happy with letting the Greeks and Romans (Tacitus, really, I think) get an unquestioned bully pulpit to tell us all about the Celts. There are some major caveats here!
Finally agree with the specific quibble, and have removed the statement, remembering that that the sources mention actual archaeological fonding of contemporary groups of skeletons without heads. To be added shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, can you give another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third read

The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the Iron Age stone idols were destroyed and then forgotten.: of which Iron Age stone idols? We have Archaeologists assume the Corleck and Corraghy Heads were intended as elements of a larger shrine a moment earlier, which allows the possibility that there were more idols, but doesn't actually say it. Do we mean "most idols made in Ireland" or "most of the idols that once existed at Corleck alongside these ones"? Either way, we need to be clear that the corpus in question actually existed first.
Yes thorny. Have removed the claim. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The loacal historian and folklorist Thomas J. Barron was the first to recognise the Corleck Head's age and significance: typo. I'd be happier if this was phrased in a more verifiable way: how do we know that nobody walked past it a few years earlier, made the same realisation, and forgot to write it down?
Would prefer not to go down this pedantic route. The point is its was held in low regard until Barron, who that year contacted the Maher...the NMI director rather than a researcher, who took a large interest in it and the museum has had it on permanent, prominent display since. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so simply "the historian Thomas J. Barron recognised ...", "brought the head to national attention..." or similar?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what it reads..."Barron contacted the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) in 1937, after which its director Adolf Mahr arranged the Corleck Head's permanent loan to the museum for study.[4][9]". Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Through his initial research and interviews he found that: any reason not to shorten to "Barron found that..."?
No. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The head cuts off just below the chin, giving it the appearance of being disembodied: I must admit that I don't really understand the importance of this. If "disembodied" just means "not attached to a body", isn't that just a restatement of what came before? On the other hand, if we're arguing that it looks disembodied (as in, never or no longer being associated with a body) rather than severed, I think we need better evidence, especially as we row in the other direction later on.
It was a source trying to be colourful....agree not helpful here, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
their enigmatic, complex expressions: enigmatic I understand, but what does complex mean here? It usually has some idea of having lots of different interacting parts, but I'm not sure I see that any given facial expression can be more complex than another in that sense. Is this just hendiadys?
It is totally hendiadys created by me when synthesising sources. But is no longer. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the faces are clean-shaven and lack ears.: I wonder whether lack facial hair or ears would be better, since clearly nobody has actually gone and shaved the stone.
Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a hole under its base: in its base, surely?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style": this seems not really to square with the idea we had earlier about it being "the most Gaulish-looking" sculpture of its kind found in Ireland. It sounds as though we're talking about an aesthetic reassessment, from seeing it as pretty rough to seeing it as unusually sophisticated. Is there anything to say about that?
Not really appart from the various accolades over the last 80 years, though I get what you mean vs. is being said. Think minimalism - an understated level of detail leading to sophisticated and complex (!) facial expressions. I would defiantly appreciate some help with this. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at here is that the artistic or aesthetic opinion on the head seems to have changed over time, as well as opinions as to its archaeological importance. Early viewers seemed to have viewed it as a bit primitive and "Gaulish-looking" (which surely meant "barbaric" at the time); later viewers seem to be doing the opposite, and describing it as relatively refined and sophisticated by comparison with "barbaric" artworks of the time. Can this change in appreciation be tracked in the sources? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't changed at all over time, remember its was only brought to national attention in the 30s, and is understudied. The only people who have advanced opinion are Barron, Maahr and Ross. Between Maher and Ross openionions on the broad sweep may have changed, which you are getting at. I'll remove the Maher quote accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although most are thought to origionate from between 300 BC and 100 AD: typo.
Yikes. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
given techniques such as radiocarbon dating cannot be used.: my EngVar really needs given that, but is that the case in Irish English? Can't find a good example of "given [subordinate clause]" (rather than "given [noun phrase]", like "given the stormy weather and lack of food, this expedition is doomed.") on Google Books, but it's also not the easiest thing to search for. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually say "given..." rather than "given that...", but its not a matter of going to war over. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ross, similarities include its use of the Celtic ideal of what she describes as "sacred triplism": I think we've got this a little bit backwards. The similarity in question is obvious: it's got a feature or motif repeated in triplicate. The important and contentious bit of the "sacred triplism" is that she posits an explanation for this: that the (obvious) fact that all these representations use sets of three reflects a belief that triple nature is somehow sacred. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but missing the point here, are you suggesting that they were producing secular three-faced heads at cultic sites in the 1st century AD? Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that we've phrased it as if it's somehow a matter of opinion that the idol has three heads -- as it's strikingly obvious, that bit doesn't really need an "according to Ross". However, we do need to be explicit that Ross argues from the three-headed nature of the idol towards a broader idea that triple-natured things were inherently sacred to the Celts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed as the term "sacred triplism". Its not worth to me continuing this. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

have very similarly composed faces: what does this mean, exactly? Does it mean "three faces", or faces with similar expressions?
Clarified as "faces with similar expressions". Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This view has been challenged: I'm not sure what "this view" is -- we introduced a lot of ideas in the previous paragraph, and the last one was that other British examples look similar to the Corleck one. I assume that Ian Armit is saying that the Corleck Head is probably modern in date? If so, we need to work that into The Corleck head is one of the earliest known figurative stone sculptures found in Ireland, unless we're going to unequivocally reject Armit's idea, in which case we need to bring in some sources to do that.
Hmm. Now rephrased as "The Iron Age dating....", however Armit was equivocal and his suggestion, which I'm not sure he fully believed, is very much a minority view. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeological evidence suggests a complex and prosperous Iron Age society in Corleck that assimilated many external cultural influences, with the early forms of Celtic religion generally thought to have been introduced to Ireland around 400 BC: with the recent edits, this no longer quite hangs together.
Good spot removed...again glad that the article remains narrow in scope and does not try and explain/defend larger claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number three seems to have been especially significant to the Celts.: I think this bit really needs to be with the "sacred triplism" discussion: either move this up or bring that down.

Have regiged and brought down the few claims. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the hooded figures known as Genii Cuucullati: as the Genii Cuucullati?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From surviving artefacts, it can be assumed that multi-headed (as with the "Dreenan" figure and the Corraghy Heads) and multi-faced idols (such as the Corleck Head) were a common part of Irish Celtic iconography: I think something is missing here. We can't infer from the artefacts themselves that the artefacts were common -- but we perhaps could from the number of surviving artefacts (knowing that most artefacts of any sort don't survive).

Its an astute concern, but don't see the need to change here. I think its implied that the claim "multi-headed idols were a common part of Irish Celtic iconograph" is based on the ratio of that type of surviving artefacts vs the total. But of course there may have been a bias in those selected by hereditary keepers. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps...another in my get to list is Hereditary keepers, which is especially fascinating wrt to Insular art metalwork, but haven't yet found a source that discusses it generally, beyond mention of specific examples of families/objects. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's implied, but not explicitly stated in the sources, we should make it explicit; if it's not explicitly stated in the sources, we can't imply it per WP:SYNTH. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your request still seems muddy, the ratio is implied by the statement "From surviving artefacts". I find this extremely nitpicky. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who are traditionally associated with Corleck Hill: traditionally covers a multitude of sins. Do we mean that modern tradition (dating to the C16th or something like that) associates them, or do we have reason to believe that people in the Iron Age did?
Iron Age people; now clarified. 00:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The Aghadowey pillar was carved from a tree trunk and had four heads, each with hair, that is today known only from a very simple 19th-century drawing. Not quite grammatical. Suggest that the best solution would be to make a full stop and then "It is today known...".
Agree...Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeologists speculate if the larger structure represented a phallus—a common Iron Age fertility symbol: either speculate that or speculate as to whether.
Not sure of the difference...but done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note D needs a full stop. In most style guides, all footnotes should have full stops, including references (you'll notice that the SFN template family add one automatically).
Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography, Mackillop should come before Mahr, and Aldhouse-Green before Armit.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic behind the order of the three Kelly sources? Ditto the middle two Ross sources.
Reverse chronology. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denbighshire is a county, not a city: is that the best we can do for the place of publication of Ross 1998? From the Companies House record, John Jones was based in Ruthin.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs should be given as the form printed on the source itself. 13-digit ISBNs weren't issued until 2007, so sources like Waddell 1998 should have the 10-digit form found on them.
As am using the republications with 13-digits, have used them...there may be differences in page numbers. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a republication (rather than a new edition), the practice is to cite it with the original details (date and ISBN): if it's a new edition, it is cited with the new date (and the original date in the relevant parameter, ideally) and the new ISBN. We're currently going halfway, "updating" the ISBNs but not the years. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a route I want to go down. Its seems overy fussy, time consuming, low value and distracting, and not once have I been asked for this before. Am very much regretting conceding to Jo Jo that would add issns so there would be blue and the end of each source; did suspect at the time that pedants would see an opportunity and push further. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The volume title for Rynne 1972 is in sentence case, not title case. Ditto Warner 2003.
Done...I think...the titles were cut/paste from the publications. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books have a place of publication, others don't, even when it's not obvious from the publisher (e.g. Routledge).
Updated and think ok now...the publications left that don't have those were its obvious. 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
"Winter 2000" and similar as a date/volume should be capitalised.
Done...I think. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes "volume" and "number" are abbreviated, sometimes they are not. Using a citation template would help with this and other nit-picky consistency issues.
Cleaned up. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some periodicals have ISSNs (which are good), others don't.
I went with Jo-Jo comment that "Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's"...ie add an ISSN if there isn't a JSTOR copy available. I can add, but not anxious to do that. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, again a pleasure to work through all these further points during an expert review, which are hens teeth in my areads of Wiki. Think I have them all but have above made a request re a degree of sophistication of craft absent in the often "vigorous and ... barbaric style"...not sure of the point you are making. Thank u once again. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be spiralling into circles of pedantry. Have met all demands as far as I agree; but not willing to go further regarding correctly reflecting the original 10 vs republished 13 ISBNs, having ISSNs for all articles...not just those not on JSTOR, etc...for reasons given above. A support or an appose pls at this stage otherwise we could go on for ever towards the perfect article.. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC

sawyer777

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

"The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
"Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
"on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
"only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
"only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. I'm happy to support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Very interesting.

Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.
Have removed "probable" form the lead. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?
Not sure; the human head was [part of a larger structure, and only it survives. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"

Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?
Its a quote. Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens, done until the last point, which I agree with. Have done some restructuring overall as suggested, but would like to weave the Corleck head into the head cult sect as suggested, as sources mention it as a major (Irish) example of the artefact type. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, re that last point, I was wondering if this article is ready for Jens to relook at yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I'll be taking another look tonight and will ping yourself, UC and Jens then. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, can you Jens and UndercoverClassicist pls take another look, as have done a significant reorg of the structure and coverage per Jens. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second look: The structure looks much better and more logical to me. However, I feel it still needs work:

It is not apparent to me what structure the lead follows; the order in which the information is presented looks a bit random. The easiest would be to organise the lead the same way as the article.

Yes good point, have regigged. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One example regarding lead structure: its placing in the Late Iron Age is based on the iconography, which is similar to that of other northern European Celtic artefacts from that period – this is in the second sentence, but in the second paragraph, you have this: As with many stone artefacts, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. This makes two sentences on dating, but in different paragraphs, and the second one does seem quite isolated without connection to the paragraph it is placed in.
I would also have expected to find a little bit from the "Description" section in the lead, but the only fact it states is (if I don't miss something) that it has three faces.
Now contains the claim "shows three relatively primitive faces, each with similar features including bossed eyes, thin and narrow mouths and enigmatic expressions." Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unsure about the division of the "Discovery" section, with the distinct section "Corleck Hill". I am wondering if these should be partly combined, to discuss the information in logical order when it becomes relevant. At the moment, the first paragraph simply lacks the context that is only provided in the "Corleck Hill" section.
Agree very much with this and have spun out Corleck Hill so the head article doesn't have to do such explaining...corresponding cut to the text and merging of sections to remove duplication per your concerns. To say, the broader subject is not well covered on wiki, so have had to create more than one other daughter or parent artice so that our Head article isn't explaining everything about the long and vague transition period between pre-christian and Roman-British religion and idolotary. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example: passage grave that was then under excavation – when reading this, I think of an archaeological excavation, or at least an excavation with the purpose of extracting the artefacts. But later, in the Corleck Hill section, the info is repeated (not ideal), and only here it becomes clear: The monuments were excavated during the 18th and 19th centuries to make way for farming land. This is really something I would have liked to learn earlier.
Have moved up the claim. Ceoil (talk)
You have this in the first paragraph: to build the farmhouse that became known colloquially as the "Corleck Ghost House", and this one in the last paragraph: to build a dwelling house nearby, known locally as the "Corleck Ghost House." – Again, all these repetitions tell me that the structure of the "Discovery" section is not ideal yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hvae added a teaser description I the lead as suggested, cant believe missed that opportunity! Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC, Jens and Gog. I am getting hammered here as there is no easy-to-use temple to follow on previous FACs for such objects, and the suggestions ~~seem to be, at times, contradictory.~~ Thanks Jens, but Gog & UC need Help! Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes! Ping me when ready and I will have a third look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Jans, almost there!! 12:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a look for comparable FAs: there aren't many on portable antiquities, but we do have a series on helmets, thanks to Usernameunique: Shorwell helmet, Pioneer Helmet and Benty Grange helmet, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

File:JanusandLustymoreFigures_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
"or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
"today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
- - MOS:ART also discourages "on permanent display", as things rarely are. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has been reworded as "It has been in the collection of the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin since 1937, where it is usually on display". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
"Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
"Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones
- - That's exactly the point of "Insular" - their relationship to Continental "Celts" is the subject of much controversy. Insular art is also available for linking. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

Looking good, after the PR. I may wait a while for changes after other comments above. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod are you still planning on reviewing the candidate? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I won't be opposing, so if you are ready to promote, don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor changes; let me know if you don't like. Interesting article, now nicely masticated by other reviewers.

Is Triple deities worth a link, or See also?

Nothing else.

Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"its placing in the Early Iron Age is based on the iconography". It is not Early Iron Age. The Late Iron Age in Ireland is first to fifth centuries AD. See [2] and [3]. You say late iron age in the next paragraph.
"where it is usually on display". You do not appear to have a source for "usually". I suggest deleting the comment.
"The archaeologist John Waddell believes the majority of the contemporary stone idols were destroyed". Contemporary is ambiguous. When made or existing, and contemporary to what?
"stone idols were destroyed and "then forgotten"". I do not think you need the quotes.
"Sam, placed the Corleck head on a gatepost. He also uncovered" This appears to refer to Sam but presumable Barron is intended.
"unlocalised multi-faced ivory pendant head". Unlocalized is the wrong word. It means not confined to a particular location rather than the location being unknown, which I assume is what you mean.
Done as far as here. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The early forms of Celtic religion were introduced to Ireland around 400 BC." Other sources put it earlier. The article on the Tandragee Idol, which dates to 1000 to 500 BC, cites sources which describe it as a representation of a Celtic god.

Ross 2010 claims that the older "Neolithic agriculturalist" gods began to be mixed with Celtic gods from around the 4th century BC. Have updated the Tandragee artice; the span there is around 1000-400BC, and is "though" to represent Nuada, the mythological king of the Tuatha Dé Danann (FFE. 1500 BC) Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual when listing articles and book chapters as sources to give the page numbers, although I do not know whether it is a requirement.
I could add but it would take a lot of time and have not done it in the past at FAC...the individual refs have page numbers and the source listing gives isbns, JSTOR refs or issns. The difficulty is time, for consistency if I do it for one have to do it for all, and that might stall the nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, very helpful. All done now except for the last one. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

What makes https://www.tuatha.ie/boa-island/, "Gentleman and Scholar: Thomas James Barron" and "Lanigan Wood, Helen. Images of Stone. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1976." high-quality reliable sources? Source formatting seems consistent, 'xcept for the lack of ids at Eamonn's second citation, Warner, Richard's and some of Anne Ross's. I wonder if anyone has access to the JSTOR reviews of "Ross, Anne. The Pagan Celts. Denbighshire: John Jones, 1998. ISBN 978-1-8710-8361-3" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have emailed a copy of Bruce G. Trigger, "Reviewed Work: Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition by Anne Ross". https://www.jstor.org/stable/480435 Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't find it while searching on the JSTOR website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was behind a paywall on some subscription levels. Will replace Tuatha and Barron in the next day or so. Lanigan Wood is probably ok; see her referenced in many of the other books, but will dig further. Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have replaced Smyth, Tuatha and Lanigan Wood. ISSNs added for the sources without an ISBN or JSTOR id. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's moot now that it was withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

What does "carved in the round" mean.

Clarified as "fully three-dimensional without any side not attached to a flat background" Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now I am confused by the double negative "... without any side not attached ..." Is it possible to recast that with either no or one negatives? Or just go with a more positive description? "A fully three-dimensional carving that can be observed from every side" or similar.

Typo re not, since removed. We have Theatre in the round but that doesn't seem helpful to link. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, In the round (disambiguation) has, as #2, "Freestanding sculpture, distinct from relief carving — see Statue" Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that in the round is not mentioned in the target article this link would be less than helpful to a reader and I would prefer that it not be used. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting it should be - but Sculpture#Types begins by explaining it, & I've changed the disam lk to that. That can be linked. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I an not sure about "bossed". Wiktionary has it meaning "to decorate with bosses; to emboss." Protruding?

Have gone with linking to Repoussé and chasing and clarifying "that is raised") Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It shows three relatively primitive faces". Maybe 'primitively-carved faces' or similar to avoid ambiguity?
Thinking about this as its not so much that the carving is primitave, more so the faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The three faces seem to depict". I don't think you mean "seem", maybe 'have been conjectured as depicting' or similar?
Done I think...have used "apparently" instead? Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "seem" in the lead.

"Corleck Hill was a major religious centre during the late Iron Age". Could you point out where this is in the main article.

Ignore this, I found it

"a relative of the Halls". Introduce them please.

Done by moving the claim lower down. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic (the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures) site of worship during the Iron Age, described as once being "the pulse of Ireland"." This is a busy sentence, and falls foul of the MoS on quotations. ("The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.) Maybe 'The literary evidence indicates that the hill was a significant Druidic site of worship during the Iron Age, such and such described it as once being "the pulse of Ireland". Druids were the priestly caste in ancient Celtic cultures.'?

Re priestly cast yes. Re the "the pulse of Ireland", cannot find an origin for this, but its used often. Ive rephrased as "traditionally known as", but thinking of removing. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would go with 'and is known as once being "the pulse of Ireland"'

Suggest moving note a from the lead to the first mention of Lughnasadh.

Agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Celtic scholar Anne Ross, the Corleck Head "correspond(s) closely to Celtic anthropoid ..." I can't find the closing quote marks. :-)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Optional: introduce the "Ulster group of heads".
"Romano-British (between 43 and 410 AD) and Gallo-Roman iconography." No dates for Gallo-Roman?

Have given 1st c. BC to the 5th c. AD. User:UndercoverClassicist might have a more exact range. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"have similarly drawn faces". "drawn"? As with a pencil?
Similarly "described". Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"were a common part of their iconography." Probably best to refer who "their" refers to.
No clarifying as Irish Celts Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". Why is it suggested that this was periodic, as opposed to permanent or as a one off?
Excellent point. Because of the flat base and the purpose of such ceremonial objects in them days. Its explained better in another source vs Waddell; digging through. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any more to come on this point? Gog the Mild (talk)

No luck tralling the sources, but it might emerge again as work through the parent article. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above in green.
Are "the Corraghy Idols" the same thing as "the Corraghy Heads"?
No...the Corraghy Idols is a grouping for both Corraghy and Corleck Heads. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Genii Cuucullati". When italics are used for emphasis <em> templates should be used, not apostrophes. See MOS:ITAL.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Archaeologists disagree on whether the Corleck Head was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure" and "The hole at the Corleck Head's base indicates that it was periodically attached to a larger structure". There seems to be a contradiction here.
An older mid 20th-c source was used when the "disagree" claim was made...now removed. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog; your support means a lot and your incessant gripes and demands brought the page on immensely :) Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Lazman321

Will do spotchecks for sourcing and copyright later today here. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can email you pdfs or book screenshots on request. However, in the interests of not duplicating effort, the article already went through extensive sourcing/copyright testing during its GA review (noting that you intend to test 28 out of its 55 references, a depth of cross-examination and back and forth I'm not sure the effort needed of my time is worth it just to get an FA, and perhaps sets a standard/time sink that many other potential nominators would be uncomfortable with). Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a spotcheck is still required here for the FAC to pass. And as for the number of citations I'm checking, FAs are supposed to the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, and sourcing and copyright compliance are, in my opinion, two of the most vital parts of a great article. As such, I don't think this is a waste of time. If there's no further objection, I'll start soon. Lazman321 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks are never a waste of time. I usually do a couple or more whenever I do a source review. Editors prepared to do source checks are a scarce resource so they are only mandatory for first time nominators. That said, the more spotchecks we get across FAC, the more confident we can be that FAs are the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. So thank you for taking this on and happy spotchecking. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Mu feeling is the at I'll never meet UCs changing standards, and now this, and so out. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course go ahead. I look forward to replying to 28 checks on source integrity. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting too stringgent, withdrawing. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you reconsider. There does seem to be a forming consensus to pass this article. I'm just trying to help you solidify it. Lazman321 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: it appears this has been withdrawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The review turned from helpful to impossible a few days ago, and I no longer want to engage. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way Ceoil, but thinking back to some of my FACs, I can certainly sympathise. I am processing the backroom "paperwork". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog for being understanding as usual. ~~I can't take any more being so patronised and undermined~~ and think I will switch instead to living with GA level. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]