Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soiscél Molaisse/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [1].

Soiscél Molaisse

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An 11th century decorative Insular style cumdach (book-shaped shrine) added to a small 8th century wooden reliquary box that may have once contained parts of the remains of a saint, and/or an Early Medieval manuscript. Feedback as always most welcome. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  1. c:File:Case_of_Molaise's_Gospels.png needs a US tag
  2. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET.jpg : not seeing that tag at the source given, and does the licensing cover only the image or the work as well? Ditto
  3. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET_2.jpg
  4. c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg needs a US tag, and the source link is dead
  5. c:File:Book_or_Shrine,_Cumdach_of_the_Stowe_Missal_MET_tem12412s1_(cropped).jpg : as above, does the licensing cover the image, the work, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: I've reread deriviative works (especially see 5th casebook entry c:COM:DW#casebook) a couple of times and am entirely convinced that because these are reproduced copies of public domain works, no new copyright can have been created for the reproduced items, so the MET's own photographic permission is all we need.
Not that it makes any difference to my thinking, the items were sold in Dublin by Edward Johnson Ltd, Dublin silversmiths, in 1908-1912. Edmund Johnson (Edmund being a version of Edward often used in Ireland) listed in the 1908 Dublin directory, as manufacturing silversmiths and jewellers with a Royal Warrant. This entry implies they were defunct by 1926. According to the provenance the works the Mat have were created before 1912 and 1908, so must be well out of copyright even if they were not exact copies, though they claim to be copies. I cannot find anything else significant about "Edward Johnson Ltd" as listed in the provenance other than in the Mats own webpages. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these are claimed to be PD because they are mechanical copies of PD works and not because of the Met licensing statement, then these will need separate tagging for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: The Met licence is for their photos not for the piece. How can we place such a PD statement in the files or is there a template for that? ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply add another template with a note that this applies to the reproduction and that to the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nikkimaria, I'm still not getting what needs to be done re license for the repro Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil and Nikkimaria: I've added an additional work specific PD licence with detailed reasons the works are PD. It's the only template that seems to suit the bill for such a circumstance. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ww2, you have gone above and beyond on this one. 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1

[edit]

Restoration "It underwent restoration in 2014, when layers of accumulated dirt and a wax coating were removed." may be an unreliable source and seems to refer to the copy not the original.

Any scientific study e.g. carbon dating of the wood?

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will look re studies. Your copyedits were excellent. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the 2014 claim. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise

[edit]

Hi Ceoil, I hope you've been well. Here, no big complaints. :-) This article seems pretty interesting and I am having a look. You'll notice I'm also making some mini-edits along the way. Here are the comments I have so far, probably more to come:

  • Wiki-link "frontispiece"?
  • "The figures are dressed in long tinics and cloaks, and depicted in a style that closely resemble those found on the cumdachs of the near contemporary Stowe Missal and slightly later Breac Maodhóg.[20]" I suggest something like "those of" before "Breac Maodhóg". I think you definitely need something here for flow. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shrine is in poor condition, especially the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are lost, as are some of its jewels." Here "especially" doesn't quite seem to work, I'd argue. I think it's trying to say that the main reason we can say the shrine is in poor condition is that some parts of it are missing. Nothing immediately jumps out at me as a good succinct way to say that, but there surely is one. (It's late here and my brain's not at 100%.) Well, see if you have any ideas for a good way to reword it, otherwise I'll try again to come up with something in my next read-through. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, I'm beginning my second read-through... Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The figures and other elements dated to this last phase can be identified as they are soldered to the plates." I admit I'm a little confused by this sentence. Maybe this just means that we know which components (figures and other elements) were added later (not in the 8th century) because there is evidence of soldering—and soldering suggests they were added after the fact, not in the original phase? But maybe what threw me was the next sentence talks about how we know the dating of the inner core (8th century), so I was kind of expecting it would be logical that this previous sentence was about how we likewise know this part dates from the 15th century. But then when I re-read it I saw the sentence was about something slightly different... I think. Is there information in the sources about how we can date it to the 15th century, and if so would it be worthwhile to add it? I'm not sure whether other people would get confused by the flow of this sentence, or if it was just me. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I've got to the next sentence "The major elements date to the 11th century." So that's the 1001–1011 from the previous paragraph. But I see 1001–1011 is repeated again in this paragraph. Could I suggest it might be clearer to reorganize the two paragraphs to be totally chronological: (1) Everything we know about the 8th century phase; (2) Everything we know about the 11th century phase; (3) Everything we know about the 15th century phase. Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the manuscript that is mentioned in Dating is the same thing as the gospel book that is mentioned elsewhere? Oh yes, I see this is stated in the lead: "original object held a now-lost companion text, presumed to be a small illuminated gospel book". But since the lead is supposed to outside of the narrative of the main text, the mention of "its manuscript" in the main text seems kind of sudden, as though it's assumed there has already been mention of it—but the only mention so far has been in the lead.
Related to this, I notice the sentence "That book was, until the 19th century, believed to have been transcribed by Molaisse" in the lead is cited to Overbey, but under Description "until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself; one late medieval text describes how it was, as surmised by the art historian Raghnall Ó Floinn, "sent down to him from heaven while on a pilgrimage to Rome" " is cited to Ó Floinn. Maybe both Overbey and Ó Floinn said that until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself, I'm not sure. But it's unusual to have a citation in the lead, and I'd argue it would be more usual to put the citation just here in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These points re the manuscript have been addressed. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was enshrined in the 11th century with a cumdach made up of plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver and mountings". This seems like a possible repeat of "the rather plain[3] 8th-century wooden core has bronze casing, that was heavily embellished and added to between 1001–1011 when silver plaques were fastened with nails and rivets". If so, it's a bit confusing to the reader to be presented the same info again, and they're not sure if it's meant to be different from what they already read. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm just asking because the wording is so similar, but are the "panels on the front face are missing, and those that remain are in bronze and silver-gilt" the same as "plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver"? And regardless of whether they are, if the description should be kept in both places, should the wiki-link on "silver-gilt" be instead around "gilded silver"? Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condition and restorations: "The 15th-century additions seem to have consisted of embossed silver plates, but are now also mostly lost". This is stated as though it's the first time it's being mentioned, but this was already said in Dating. Maybe the sentence can be tweaked to subtly acknowledge that this has already been mentioned. One idea, something like: "The shrine is in poor condition; in addition to the lost silver plates from the 15th century additions, the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are also lost, as are some of its jewels."
    I went with your, better, phrasing. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Molaisse is introduced in the lead as "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse". In the 6th century, Molaisse founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh, which the cumdach is associated with." Then in the main text he is mentioned in passing "a successor of Molaisse..." as though Molaisse has already been introduced, but he hasn't yet in the main text, only in the lead. These details about "Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571)" and "founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh" don't seem to be in the main text at all, unless I missed them.
    Now expanded in the article body beyond what is in the lead. I could prob go more, hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those are all my comments. I really enjoyed this article, very interesting! Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mosie....working through these excellent points. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, wasn't sure if you are ready for me to look at your changes? (No rush if you're not!) Just ping me when you're done, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, almost there but not quite. Will ping u shortly. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, will be pinging you tonight. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp, would appreciate if you could revisit now. As mentioned above, have rewritten and expanded since you comments, but got distracted. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse, side and end panels: "The also contain triquetra". I would have quickly edited it for you, but I wasn't sure if this is supposed to be "They also contain" or "The (something plural) also contain" or possibly "The (something singular) also contains"? I will assume in good faith that you'll correct that small mistake, and announce my support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that, and thanks so much :) Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude

[edit]
  • One side has depictions of figures with rounded facial features and disproportionally large heads, in panels decorated with highly ornate borders. - I'm not sure the comma here is necessary. The heads are in the panels after all, yes?
  • However, analysis of the style and technique ... - Why 'however', I'm not detecting any contradiction with the preceding sentence. Unless the unknown 'nlan' is also a craftsman?
  • However the art historian Mitchell Perette describes Baíthín's script as "remarkably uneven" - Again, I'm not noting a contradiction with the preceding statement. Baíthín's script might not be the finest, but that doesn't tell us that Insular craftsmen were not esteemed in Ireland.
  • I leave this up to you, but regarding measurements it might be nice to provide conversions to inches for the Americans that may pass by the article. I don't know how others feel about this being necessary or not.

I don't really have more to comment on. I made a couple of corrections through edits as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks. Got these and will add conversions shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
conversions added. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in the Insular style from an 8th-century wooden core ... - I think you meant to say 'made from an'.
    Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shrine is oblong in shape and measures 14.75 cm (5.8 in) high, 11.70 cm (4.6 in) wide and 8.45 cm (3.3 in) thick, it is the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels - comma splice.
  • ... the 8th-century Book of Dimma <- Sometimes you hyphenate, sometimes you don't –> The 11th century inscriptions ...
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two long sides consists of a sliver plate divided into three compartments - Consist of rather than consists of, I think.
    eek, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase ... - You don't need both 'eventual's here.
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... speculated that Petrie had heard about it from the antiquarian Roger Chambers Walker - As Walker has already been introduced earlier, you can cut it down to just Walker.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is today in the collection of ... - MOS:CURRENT says to avoid 'today', 'currently' etc. I'm not a MOS stickler, but you could just say 'It is in the collection of ...'
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase sometime during or after 1845 - I'm slightly confused by this statement given that later in the section you state that [i]ts last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan ... sold it ... in April 1859 for £45. Was the item sold more than once? If so, how did it return to the hands of the hereditary keepers? They bought it back?

Comments from my second read. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, the drawings are extremely low res, but being from Archive.org, it should be really easy to get larger res versions if you just zoom in to about 100% before you download the page. You should also link to the exact page in the Commons source fields. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got these, though hope to be able to photograph it in a dew weeks. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, could the full drawing in the infobox get the same treatment? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, and looks much better. Thanks for the tip re zooming to 100% :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why it's not one of the photos that's in the infobox?
  • "(d. 1025) (a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)" I wonder if it would look better to just keep all this in a single parenthesis? "(d. 1025, a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)".
  • "(a type of ornamented metal reliquary box or case)" Give this explanation in the aticle body too?
  • " 14.75cm high, 11.70cm wide" Give conversions? In any case, shouldn't there be space between the numbers and cm?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could mention what language the inscriptions are in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could restate at the beginning of the "Inscriptions" section what language they were in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "View of one of the long sides, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side. New York replica" Could state earlier it is the replica as part of the sentence, for example "View of one of the long sides of the New York replica, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side."
Many thanks, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St. Molaisse" ANyone to link to? Or can we state which church he was associated with?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and almost nothing of its content or style was recorded" What do we know of its contents?
  • Was it normal to depict the Evangelists as animals at this time?
  • "while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs" Could some examples be given? You give some under dating, but I wonder if they would fit better under description?
  • expanded on this a bit, but in general they are not any particular animal. from the zoomorphic article "...describes art that portrays one species of animal like another species of animal or art that uses animals as a visual motif, sometimes referred to as "animal style" Ceoil (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse"." Should also be stated in full in the article body.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Soiscél Molaisse is the earliest surviving cumdach, and with a height of just 14.75 cm (5.8 in), also the smallest." Also seems to be only stated in the intro, which should not contain unique info.
  • "was in the possession of the hereditary keepers O'Meehan family of Ballaghameehan, County Leitrim until the 18th century" But the article body says "Its last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan of Latoon County Clare, sold it to the Bishop of Kilmore in April 1859".
    fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Kildare Street, Dublin." Why more location info in the intro than in the article body? There are also other locations that should either be copied or moved to the article body.
    That its in the National Museum of Ireland – Archaeology on Kildare st. now clarified further down. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks are not done. It seems like the references are consistently formatted and structured. I kind of question if this is a reliable source. I take that Limerick Leader is a reliable source? William Stokes (physician) seems like a mislink to me. Everything else looks like a reliable source to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, Gog, yes re "Limerick Leader" and has been removed. The William Stokes link is surprisingly correct. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still wondering about https://fermanaghastoryin100objects.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/conservation-of-the-st-molaise-shrine/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, thought I had fixed that...now sourced to Moss' overview. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is all, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that as a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • " (d. 564 or 571)," Recommend using Template:abbr for "d." There's a couple of places in the article with this, so if you decide to use this template it should probably apply to all instances.
  • "Show are the Teampall Mór church and medieval round tower." -> shown are?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ends have large chain-rings or knots that bear obvious influence from Viking art,[10] while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs of Viking Dublin, to the extent that Ó Floinn suggested in 2014 that Dublin may have been its place of origin.[10]" Not sure if you need the first [10] reference in this sentence, as a ref at the end of the sentence is generally assumed to apply to the whole sentence. I won't withhold my support if it stays, but I think removing unnecessary refs makes the article easier for readers to read.
    done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although neither are considered strong candidates." Who do not consider them strong candidates? The wider historical community? Mitchell?
    done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the information in Condition should be given its own section, considering how short it is. Perhaps move it to Description? I think most of the information in this section is covered in Description anyways.
    Agree, doing...Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    done Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "O'Buachalla, Brendan." referring to Breandán Ó Buachalla?
    done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "De Paor, Marie" Referring to Máire de Paor?
    done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, have you addressed all of Z1720's comments? If so, could you ping them as they requested? If not, could you do so? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi Z1720, got all of those, except for the d. Template which am still trying to figure out :o Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it myself, tell me what you think. Its inclusion is not necessary for my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Curious, I'll begin after the lead and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

  • Can the sentence beginning "The book is assumed ..." perhaps be broken? Many clauses.

Images

Notes

  • Some "references" rather look like notes to me, - could they be separated in a note list?

Lead

  • Can we have a link to St. Molaisse the first time, or - if not - an explanation right there?

All these are really minor questions, - I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Soiscél_Molaisse/archive1&oldid=1050295013"