Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clonmacnoise Crozier/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) 31 March 2022 [1].

Clonmacnoise Crozier[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An 11th century Irish Insular crozier that had been lost until the around the 1790s, before which it was presumably buried by its keepers to avoid plunder from internal or external menace. It dates from the so called early medieval "golden age" of Irish metalwork, but contains a number of design and construction elements influenced by Viking art. Croziers of this era were built from precious metal by the highest regarded (but largely unknown) metalworkers and intended to give status and weight to their owners, usually bishops, but later clansmen seeking to establish authority during disputes or swearing of oaths. The object is in good condition and widely considered the finest example of its type.

Feedback and demands gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
File:Screen Shot 2022-01-23 at 7.37.54 PM.png

The licensing looks OK, but there are serious issues with image sandwiching, primarily in the "description" section. In addition, ref 2 "Colmcille 1500 Lecture Series: St Columba's crosier: power and devotion in medieval Ireland" needs a timestamp in order to be verifiable, in the same way as you have to provide a page # for a book. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & thanks, have reduced River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg which I think caused most of the overlap. Looing re timestamp re Colmcille 1500...Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not fix the sandwiching problem, unfortunately, I see the image captioned "Drop-plate with human figure..." sandwiching the next image, "Drop-plate of the contemporary..." which sandwiches the third image: "Upper knop decorated..." Possibly a multiple images template would help. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamp (4:50–6:07) added to the video lecture. Gaa re the image squash, revisiting. I did try multiple images in preview earlier, but it diminished the impact of File:River Laune (Inisfallen) Crozier Drop.jpg, which I am very fond of. Hold on. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the images are now well spaced with rows of text separating each on my desktop. I'm not sure of your settings, but bear in mind that most readers will be using mobile, where the images appear by default in consecutive rows. Ceoil (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I have taken a screenshot of what it currently looks like to me. I am using default (100%) zoom in my browser and the default image thumbnail size, so I expect it to display without so much sandwiching. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, may have a look at going for a gallery rather than aligning left and right. Will ping when done.Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: Can you also resolve the sandwich problem in the Origin and dating section? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CPA, yes will be looking at later this evening. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, to let you know this mostly done, and more images will be added, but in gallery format. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will let someone else evaluate this. It seems like the sandwiching problems are better, but on the other hand some of the added images seem duplicative. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note Gerda is on the case and has improved the layout quite a bit, with helpfull discussions on-going below. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source review[edit]

  • Passes my source review. Everything looks in order and all of the citations are of a high quality. Spot checks are not done, but this is by no means Ceoil's first rodeo so I will leave to the coords if they need to be done here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the look!Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from §Serial Number 54129[edit]

...speculates :) I'll look in in a couple of days Ceoil, just need to find something to oppose over first :p (Joke—looks great already!) SN54129 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Apologies in advance for anything overly pernickety; these are mostly suggestions. SN54129 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • How about "one of the best preserved pieces of surviving insular art"?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Function
  • "Like all Irish Insular croziers" --first pernicketiness! I note our article says they were both Irish and Scottish, and I think the description you give here could apply to the Scottish ones as well?
    Yes, removed the word "Scottish". Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in addition to some sixty fragments... to...fragments"" Repetition of fragments, "pieces"?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Origin
  • repetition of "accounts"; "some early discussions/analyses/theories"?
  • Arm-shrine sounds cool, can't be explained, perhaps in a note? On edit: I looked for a link, but the nearest I found was this. And then saw the author!  :)
  • "Ciarán is recorded as appearing "to smite a would-be raider with his crozier" centuries after his death" --I found this slightly ambiguous: was he recorded by someone centuries later, or was he going to strike a raider centuries later?
    Clarified as him having come back from the dead Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree with not linking High Kings of Connacht to List of kings of Connacht, but should Ard Rí be moved to cover both uses?
  • NMI in full and linked din the body as well as the IB.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come "the archaeologist A. T. Lucas" earlier and "Anthony (A.T.) Lucas" now? I don't think "Anthony" is really necessary when you could call him that, with his descriptor, on the first mention and on this second mention, he can just be "Lucas".
    Yes, Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dublin School is crying out for an article  :)
    Its the Wood Quay findings from the 1960s, yes deserves exp, and will add a red link. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Zoomorphism (or perhaps Zoomorphic style)
    "Zoomorphic style" dabs to "animal style", but yes better Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Prosperous Crozier on the first mention.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, we have Confronted animals; a link is up to you, but it does discuss, albeit briefly, confronting animals in insular art.
    Nice find, done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "about the length of a walking stick" - I'm torn by this; on the one hand, it's a useful "real life" comparison for Randy to relate to, but on the other, well—can't they be any size?
    They were all about 1.2M, but this example is slightly shorter as a portion lost when it was broken so that it could be folded up to hide it from the Normans. I picked this up when browsing over the weekend, will add soon as I remember where! Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of which, I'm a bit confused by the measurements. Length is obvious, but I don't get what its width is, or what its maximum thickness means. Is one of these the diameter of the rod?
    Circumference...now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but were built concurrently" -- meaning, fitted together at the same time?
    Hmm, clarified this Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crozier was built in two phases" -- not sure how this ties in with the above.
    The basic metal staff and crook were constructed at the same time, the later stuff is mostly ornamentation.now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "acanthus leaves" to Acanthus (ornament)?
    Nice find, done Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a slight difference in how you describe what the bishop on the plate is doing with his staff; in the body, he's impaling the animal, whereas, in the adjacent image, he's holding it down.
  • Clarified
  • The theory that the drop was intended to hold a relic is pretty logical (if generally discredited), but surely even Victorian antiquarians didn't believe that the staff was made of the original saint's staff?
    Not really..roughly the saints lived 600-700, the were enshrined with metal 800-1200 and some of the later decorations came 1300-1500. We know now that it wasn't the case, but it wasnt huge leap from pre-xray 1850-1900. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always thought "ie" was i.e., but the MOS is silent on that (which makes a nice change...!)
    grand, dont care :), but done for your pleasure! Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modern provenance
  • Petrie mentioned the chalice and wine vessel, but not the arm-shrine?
  • (Non-actionable comment) "the circumstances of his purchase are unknown" -- considering the reputation of Henry Sirr, I imagine there's room for doubt as to whether he paid for it at all!  :)
  • "However the claim" -- suggest this is attributed inline, as it sounds like Murray's—rather than Wikipedia's—opinion.
    Good point...now attributed Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great article Ceoil, really interesting. Curiously, it made me want to listen to Slievenamon. I shall now do so. Cheers! SN54129 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, can you now revisit this. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! :) SN54129 10:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Can we get a link or gloss for "drop-plate"? I see it's defined in the description section, but a word or two of parenthetical definition in the lead would be helpful.
    Have changed wording in the lead to "the and terminal (known as a "drop") on the crook". Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his followers as his herd or flock": I think just "as his flock" would do.
    Agree, done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power": Is Lucas referring specifically to Saint Ciarán? If so, can we make it "of [Saint Ciarán's] power"? But you do have "the croziers acted", with the plural, so perhaps this is a general statement about the saints of the day? Great quote, by the way; I love the "spiritual electrode" image.
    Lucas is talking in general terms, but take your point...thinking. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded a bit Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Frazer crozier-head worth a redlink?
yes, and have been toying with the basis for a page for a few weeks, but the sources are scant Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I understand the measurements as given. The thickness of the crozier is given as 15.5 cm, which is presumably across the crook, since that matches the width of the crook. The maximum thickness of the crook is 3.7 cm, but the maximum width of the crozier is 13.5 cm, which is almost as wide as the diameter of the crook. I don't see anything in the images that would explain this width -- can you clarify?
  • The width refers to the breath of the crook (as you guessed), and thickness to the tube's girth or circumference. Fixed re 13.5 cm. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably croziers once held similar , but" -- looks like a missing word after "similar"?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conferring the saint's authority of to croziers": some editing debris here.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving the quote from William Frazer about the drop containing a relic down to the section of the description that mentions the theory that this is what drops were for.
  • Suggest incorporating note 2 into the text; it seems quite a relevant point that can be made concisely.
    Good idea - done Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mike, agree with all the above, but tied up unexpectedly for a few days more. Appreciate the close look and will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I'll be watching and look forward to seeing the fixes whenever you get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article on a beautiful work of art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, helpful suggestions and support. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Interesting topic, new to me, I'll comment as I read and skip the lead for the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fine

TOC fine

Function

  • "a symbol of Jesus as the Good Shepherd and his followers as his flock" - I don't think that "and" works, - not a symbol of his followers
    Yes, reworded and expanded on this Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a link for European croziers? - Why is it croziers anyway when we have Crosier? (probably an ignorant question) - Perhaps say first what a crozier is and then distinguish Insular and others?
    Take it that the non-Insular examples are European (mostly German and French. Some of the Viking egs closely align with the Irish type, as you would expect, but haven't gone into it here Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Lucas quote, there's "[the saint's]" inserted, but it would work better for me without. Not every bishop or abbot becomes a saint, no? - To be continued after food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...have expanded and tried to clarify this...not signing off yet, to be revisited in next few days. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin ...

  • "all of which would had been deposited"? - all of which would have been deposited?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ciarán is recorded as appearing "to smite a would-be raider with his crozier" centuries after his death" - awkward use of quote which says "his" so can't mean the place. Also: recorded by whom? - reading further I understood that Ciarán meant the person, not Temple Ciarán, but perhaps offer "St." to avoid that? ... and be consistent about St. vs. Saint? If Frazer says "St." we can do the same ;)
    Done except quotes and article (internal and external) article titles. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Missal - that I don't know - comes a bit as a surprise, before the location is defined, but I also don't see an obvious better spot for the mention, - do we need it here?
    No - gone! Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMI?
    Clarified at first instance Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • we are before descriptions, so "confronting lions" seems a bit early, but attention-grabbing - didn't see them on the pic before, but that just tells you how little I see.
    Good point...thinking Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desccription

  • "thickness" - not sure, - I expect that's what I'd hold but is too large for a hand
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "handle" - same, I haven't seen a bishop grab the upper part but the shaft
    True, and removed Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaft

  • "chased or repoussé (ie relief hammered from the back) copper-alloy plates" - even without brackets, that's long
    Its not a long sentance, and (see above) sometimes explaining technical terms helps Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unclear: it takes too long until I get to know that we even talk about copper-alloy plates, and without that context I am just confused by foreign words, explained or not. Could the order be changed, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Gerda, I’ll be gone for next few days again but looking forward to addressing the above deatailed reviews from all, thanks so much to all for going through in detail... Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ps thanks so much for sorting the images/text squash issue....almost there with your points. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images again Gog the Mild, this version has less sandwiching. Problem is that the images are super-long. I see repetition only for the little "dogs", which can be seen in the ibox and (in more detail) where they are described, which makes sense to me. The human figure would be even harder to see if the pic was smaller, and same for the fine detail below it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, have replaced the 2nd image of the crook with a close up of the little dogs. With the shaft, logic was to show the full lenght to give indication of size and how the elements fit together, and then the details so people got better resolution, and so could explain explain unfamiliar terms, ie this is a crest this is a drop-plate, this is a knope, this is a ferrule. I "do" like the changes you have made so far though...still thinking about how to better do this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • I made some small changes. I suggest to split the first sentence, because I don't like brackets for something as essential as telling us what a crozier is without a click. The second sentence could talk about the assumed finding.
  • Same for the next sentence: the saint and the description are not really related.
    Yes, will fix both shortly. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a hook a crook?
    Yes! A shepard has a hook, a bishop has a crook. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, - getting close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked once more, I'm ready to support. Thank you for a precious gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • There is image sandwiching in Origin and dating.
    Alleviated Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of links which need disambiguating.
    Dabed Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have a severe case of image overload here. And am I missing something, or are there repeated images of what is essentially the same thing?
    See above in Gerda's review...work ongoing Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The staff is made from a wooden core wrapped in copper-alloy tubes". By "copper-alloy", do you mean bronze?
  • Yes, now made clear. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It hasn't changed.
That copper-alloy = bronze is made clear earlier. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you repeatedly describe bronze as "copper-alloy" rather than use the common term?
Rightly or wrongly, "copper-alloy" is now the standard term in art history & museum terminology (hastened by the introduction of standard vocabularies for digitization). You would be hard put to find a major museum labelling things as bronze now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but noticing (reading about other artifacts) that archeologists often favour bronze. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm not seeing that this should be a fail reason, per Johnbod above. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. This looks FAable to me, and that is what we all want. The key question is "What do the HQ RSs say?" In the main body there are "copper alloy" x 4; "copper" x 4; and bronze x 3. Each of these 11 is cited. Do the cites match this mix of descriptions? Ceoil, any chance you could check all 11 and report back?
  • "Jesus as the Good Shepherd leading his flock". Why the upper case G and S? Also elsewhere.
Why the upper case G and S?
The sources capitalize, as does our article. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources tend to capitalise things they consider important and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there a reason within the MoS for capitalisation?
Said sorted as the more substantial points re the sentance above were addressed. will look at the MOS aspect now. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on this.
  • Should "Sarcophagus of the Three Shepherds" be in italics?
  • Its an object, so now in titles. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The distinctive shape of Irish Croziers recalls". Why the upper case C?
  • Sorry, have been away and now juggling multiple improvements; had this in the "yes of course" part of my brain, but hadnt got around to it, it seems. Doh! iows. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeek, and also allitteration...fixed. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, why the upper case C?
  • Sorted Ceoil (talk)
  • "the function of shepherd's crook in restraining wayward sheep". Either 'a shepherd's crook' or 'shepherd's crooks'.
  • "Some early accounts, mostly based on ..." This seems to start mid-paragraph. Could there be an introductory sentence? Or perhaps recast the opening one?
    Yes, reworded / sniped. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "depicted in stone on the Cross of the Scriptures". What and/or where is "the Cross of the Scriptures"?
  • Made clear that is on a high cross in Clonmacnoise. Alas dont have a good pic to back it up, but post covid we are planning a visit. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is formed from a wooden core overlaid by metal tubes". Is this metal bronze? If so, why not say so? Is the crook entubed by the same metal?
    yes its obviously bronze, as is made clear over and over in the above text that this is the metal covering the wooden core. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. But if it is so obviously bronze, why are you not describing it as such?
See above.
  • "a protective metal ferrule is placed on the tip of the shaft's base." Is it known which metal this is?
No it isn't. It still reads "while a protective metal ferrule".
Rephrased Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bachal Isu" (Staff of Jesus) - why is the name in inverted commas and the translation in italics?
    To indicate a translation. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain that a little further?
Good point, hold on, but unfortunately and for not good reasons RL has overwhelmed the time I can give to addressing. requesting that this is left open for another two weeks, and all the valuable points raised above and below are pennies from heaven. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil. As a reviewer that is fine with me, but you could probably do with an uninvolved @WP:FAC coordinators: coordinator agreeing, or not, to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, the crook is fitted with an independent crest and drop." What are they similar to and in what way?
Expanded and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In MOS:QUOTE it says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". There are a number of quotes for which there seem to be no obvious reason why they are not paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice.
    Have paraphrased a number, with the remaining ones kept as want to keep specific (usually dated) phrasing (eg spiritual electrode, smite a would-be raider, the buttocks of the preceding animal, ignorant hands, etc). Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what de Paor meant by "pierced eyes"?
  • Slitted or narrow. Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "late-9th-century"; "late-10th century"; etc. Inconsistent use of a hyphen preceding century.
    Gaa. Done. "late-9th-century" is a bit of a headace, so have dropped the 2nd hyphen. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably croziers once held similar figures". Perhaps 'presumably other croziers once held similar figures'?
  • Link figurative art. Are you sure that you mean "figurative art"? Several aspects of the decoration seem to me to be figurative.
  • Human figures....the others "evoke" animal forms...ie zoomorphism. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Figurative art is art which represents any real object. If you want a term to mean representing human forms, this isn't it.
Good spot. Now rephrased as Figure painting, which unfortunately needs work as is limited in scope to painting but of course should also apply to sculpture. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is as yet no recorded evidence to support the theories." Is there unrecorded evidence? If not, why add "recorded"?
    Tweaked Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why say "there is as yet no recorded evidence to support the theories" and then contradict this in the next sentence?
    Conveying suspicion/hunches vs fact - will clarify Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"there is as yet no evidence to support the theories." "as yet" is PoV, delete it.
  • I dont see it like that. These pieces are 900 years old and their intention is unknown, and not to be confused with a modern art historical perspective. Lets leave a wait and see, an escape clause which even Murray hedges with. Ceoil (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but, meh, ok.
  • "It contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped knops." Could you specify whether "It" refers to "a leather membrane" or "The shaft".
    Done Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are fastened to the staff by rivets". Are they fastened to the staff or to the encasing tube?
  • "plated with two copper-alloy tubes"; "They [the knops] are ... separated by lengths of undecorated copper"; "The collar below the upper knop is made of copper-alloy". There would seem to be a contradiction there.
"a wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes". Would the plating consist of that substance you seem to wish to avoid naming?
  • "interlace patterns and champlevé enameling". Could each of these terms be linked or otherwise explained.
    They are above, and now again. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"a metal cast plaque in champlevé (carved) enamel". I think that a normal reader is going to struggle to make sense of this, even if they chase the link, which they shouldn't have to. MoS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • "Picturesque views of the antiquities of Ireland" should be in title case.
  • "However Marry regards the claim that it was buried seems doubtful ..." is not grammatical.
  • "Treasury Room" - why the quote marks?
  • "they were popular across Europe during the popular across Europe during the Early Medieval period"?
  • Why are the two footnotes cited using a different convention to the rest of the article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, thanks, working through these, will ping when complete. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note some updates added above, more to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me Gog....revisiting all points, perhaps I answered individual suggestions before happy overall. To be clear, this review is pennys from heaven and has greatly improved the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, am I still waiting for a ping, or are you ready for me to revisit? I'm easy either way, just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
prob won’t get to until Friday, and will ping then....thanks Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, working towards pinging you Sunday night Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A few queries/further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of responses. It should be clear now, I hope, which of my comments I still consider to be open. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, it seems the main o/s issue is copper-alloy vs bronze, but Johnbod has explained how the terminology is used in context, and I'm inclined to stay with the source usage. Otherwise your review has been a great help, so asking that you throw down the hamemr, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, can you revisit pls, I believe all your points are addressed or explained. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I am not sure why you are getting agitated. According to Mike's stats I have done 308 reviews and only opposed 17 times. Given that I frequently get called in to consider controversial nominations, I don't think that is bad. I am leaning very much support at the moment. Some comments above which I think add up to: what does the MoS say about Good Shepherd, and what do the sources you have actually used say about bronze/copper/copper alloy? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
point taken, and yes we are almost there. Have decapitalized good shepherd and removed “as yet”. The sources are mostly copper alloy, so standardising that again now Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just as an update, will have access to a desktop tonight, to finish off these. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

  • Clearly nearly there, & a nice piece. Some points:
  • "The Clonmacnoise Crozier is a late 11th-century Insular crozier (a type of early medieval processional bishop's staff)...." rather awkward - obviously croziers aren't just "early medieval", though insular ones are. They are in general "bishop's staffs", but are they purely "processional"? Also in Ireland (and I think elsewhere sometimes) abbots also had them, as seems to be the case with this one, and in Ireland abbots seem to have outranked bishops in the early days. Maybe unpack all this a bit.
  • Have started a rewrite of the opening two sentences, which (incorporating the above) are better but not yet complete. Worried about using the word "crozier" too many times. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered in the late-18th or early-19th century on the grounds of Clonmacnoise monastery in County Offaly, Ireland." The first bit is a mouthful repeated several times in the article - might it just be easier to say "before 1821" for at least some of them? Of that we are sure. Petrie, who was 10 in 1800, is clearly repeating a story he was told, but is too much credibility being given to this? Some caution might be indicated for the find-spot also. I can't read all of "The history and provenance of two early medieval crosiers ascribed to Clonmacnoise" by Griffin Murray, but he may be the best source for nuanced wording, though he clearly thinks it was made at Clonmacnoise. I'd think "in the grounds of" better than "on the grounds of".
    ok, re-reading. As an aside, pretty good resource here if interested, which has most of what I’ve used for this page [2] Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the line of dog-like animals forming a ribbon at its top" - elsewhere these are called a "crest", which seems better to me. You might add openwork. Also, do any of sources refer to gripping beasts?
  • Have reword as a ribbon of dog-like....forming the crest....Yes "gripping beasts" are mentioned, but hadn't put 2 and 2 together re the Oseberg style. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is fully intact" - well it clearly isn't quite that - lower down "It was probably once 20 cm longer and had four knops, as with most other intact examples; the losses seem to result from its having been broken apart to make it easier to fold and thus hide from Viking and later Norman invaders". Also the crest is incomplete, and lots of the gem-like bits are missing from their settings (which should be mentioned somewhere). Another "fully intact" at the end of the "function" section.
Have restated as "largely" intact. Will add statement re gems. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is one of the best preserved pieces of surviving Insular art." is there a ref for this? Might be true - might also be better restricted to Insular metalwork. But you want the link somewhere.
  • Clarified as metalwork, and linked to the sect. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crozier is traditionally associated with Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise (c. 516–c. 549)" - presumably "traditionally" does not go back beyond the rediscovery. Given the overall time scale, probably best to indicate this.
    Have made first pass at rephrasing, but need to go back to sources. Will update here when done. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all Insular croziers produced between c. 800 and 1200" - 2nd link, & true of Western croziers in general, although the Irish shapes are more literal than most, and open, where other ones wind in on themselves. Maybe drop "Insular", or add "open"?
  • I've made some changes, including explaining the bronze/copper alloy thing, which I hope are ok.
    Yes, much better. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably revered as holding a relic of St. Ciaran" - are we going to get where that might have been?
  • " "Temple Ciarán" (the tomb of Saint Ciarán of Clonmacnoise d. c. 549)" but then "present on a high cross in Temple Ciarán" - ok seen the pic - "the building containing the tomb of Saint Ciarán" seems better. Is this one of the ruined churches? What date is given to it?
    Restated as "the now ruined oratory holding the tomb of Saint Ciarán" Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drop-plate" needs a clearer explanation & location I think.
    Working on a sub-section on drops in the Insular crozier page, so can link there. Agree re location, working. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~::Done, but is still intermeditary. Have acquired two new book sources since (Moss and Henry), so can better develop what these elements origions, iconographic meaning, and practical methods of construction. Not done, hold on Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Started and linked Insular_crozier#Drop, but needs a lot more work yet. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it "knopes" as plural of "knop" is a typo? I've been changing it.
    More of a fundamental inability to spell on my behalf. knops is the correct plural. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the later additions including the figures in the drop and " - are these the head, bishop & dragon on the drop-plate? And the row of dogs? Better clarify.
  • Claim is now that the head above the drop plate is origional, and the cleric and dragon are later. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those on the lower part of the row are damaged and have missing parts.[12]" - the Fintan O'Toole ref doesn't mention this, nor is it obvious in the pics. Clearly the top one is missing his head.
  • Addressed. As the new image clearly shows, the main damges is to the head of the uppermost beast Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that, according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them"[37] before terminating in spiral patterns.[34]" - "held in place" is just within the visual logic of the flat design, yes? Needs to be clearer, what with all the adjacent talk of binding-strips etc.
  • I'm afraid the whole crook section is rather confusing.
  • Being addressed after some snipping. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks v much; great to get an expert content review like this. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrying on:
  • I've added "The crook ends in a vertical section called the drop, with a drop-plate on the outward-facing side." to the main "description" section, as I think this needs clearly setting out. No doubt one of the refs covers this. No, the wood is solid but the binding metal is wrapped. Hopefully this is better reflected in the revised text. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    most do and of course its apparent from the images. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping around a bit: Are the wood cores of the shaft and crook actually hollow, as a couple of mentions suggest: "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core ...", "The crook " is hollow and made from a single piece of wood"?
  • Adressed earlied above.
    The image caption "14th- or 15th-century addition to the drop-plate showing a bishop impaling a dragon with the base of his staff", but the main text suggests the whole drop face, including the face/head at top, is of this date. I think the face is older, from the original, but I might be wrong. Can you confirm, & clarify if needed?
    • The dates do not need to be stated once again. Now reading "A bishop impaling a dragon with the base of his staff on the drop plate." Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to dig into this, sounds like conflicting conclusions. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes and is of equal width until the mid-point, after which it narrows until tapering off below the lowest knop." I've raised the question of whether the wood is a tube (ie hollow). If it isn't, then a clearer way of putting this might be: "The shaft is formed of a straight wooden pole [presumably the wood is all one piece?], round which two thin copper-alloy plates have been wrapped; now they do not quite meet, leaving a thin gap at the front. The shaft has a constant circumference between the top and middle knops, then tapers between the middle and bottom ones". Or does it only taper below the bottom knop? Are the knops solid rings that were slid up the pole, then fixed into place, or were they two or more bits fixed after the plates were in place?
    The wood is a single piece, and obv not hollow (have fixed this), its the bronze tubing that is not solid. The knops are nailed to the tubing, the only element that is free is the ring just above the ferrule. I like your suggested wording. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the plain "tubes" or plates round the staff, you have "The shaft is formed from a tubular wooden core plated with two copper-alloy tubes" and "They [the knops] are fastened to the tubing by rivets and separated by lengths of undecorated copper" - these are the same things, no? Copper-alloy or just copper?
    Have clarified this (they are positioned equally distant on the staff, separated by lengths of bare tubing). Only Murray in "Insular type crosiers their construction" goes into this level of detail, but doesn't say which metal. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • top knop: "It is lined with triangular and rectangular copper plaques between which are blue studs formed from glass.[48] The plaques are decorated with interlace and have borders lined with strips of twisted copper and silver wire." From the pictures these were formed separately, I'd imagine by casting, and here and on the similar bottom knop some of them are missing, with nail holes apparent underneath. Might as well say this, if in refs.
    Most of this is in Moss, so have added re losses, and instead of "formed separately" have clarified that they are inserts. The visible nails is on Murray from memory, but not at hand on this computer....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now "contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops.", but Murrary, by far the most detailed source, doesn't mention the nails. Ceoil (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying this reply feature - the Francoise Henry notes say (page with triangles diagram) "The insets are held by rivets (small domed ones; larger ones added)" Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "collar" with the lions a separate piece? There's "and like the upper knop is biconical (i.e. of two parts)" later.
    Its separate and a number of sources describe it as crest, which I don't entirely get. But of course not a collar, and clarified. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the ferrule, I can't see " and an openwork section"? Other than in the knop. Really, openwork is best used when you can see right through a piece (as between the dogs' legs). Not sure from the pics if this is the case with the triangle sections.
  • Have fixed this. Re openwork, yes and have tried ever avenue to somehow weave in the Clonmacnoise crucifixion plaque, but its much earlier, and perhaps of even less certain provenance. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's it - these are tricky things to describe, that's for sure!
  • Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "tricky things to describe" - for real. Liz's once had a job describing ancient artifacts for a museum, but her skill didnt obv rub off on me. Thanks for schooling and bearing with. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning. The lead is better for sure but "11th-century structure repaired and added to in the sometime around the early 15th century" needs a choice, which I didn't like to make.
    Now "added to". Repaired was because some lost components, eg the drop plate, were replaced. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still have it being discovered "on the grounds" of the monastery, rather than "in" - unless this is an Irish English thing; "on" slihtly hints it was just lying on the grass, rather than being dug up, found in a recess or whatever (which we don't know).
    Reworded in lead as "in Clonmacnoise monastery", as the 2nd or 3rd hand story is that it was in a small chapel in the complex. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] they are held in place by thin threads lined with strips of niello that appear as decorative flaps that" better, but I still think "held in place" risks confusing the reader that this is a physical rather than purely visual "holding". Might "overlaid" be better? On the same tack, I think straps, strips or bands better than threads, which are typically round rather than flat. What about: "Designed in the Ringerike style,[42] the animals' bodies are overlaid with patterns of thinner strips, outlined with niello, that appear as decorative bands that ..."? The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "outlined", btw.
    Simplified, yes outlined is correct. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plaque showing a looming, grotesque animal head that may be a dragon" I must say that to me it looks more likely to represent a very stylized human mask. If the sources allow for this possibility, we should say "grotesque human or animal head". Btw, as mask now says "More generally in art history, especially sculpture, "mask" is the term for a face without a body that is not modelled in the round (which would make it a "head"), but for example appears in low relief.", so strictly the correct term, but perhaps confusing to readers.
    • Its now human head (only), which seems to be consensus. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems wrong with the You Tube external link.
    • Its working fine for me...what error msg is appearing. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Johnbod, can you revisit when you get a chance pls. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final run: "At its top is a carved enamel plaque showing a looming, grotesque human head" and lower "copper plate below the drop contains carved enamel double-spiral designs". Champlevé says "in which troughs or cells are carved, etched, die struck, or cast into the surface of a metal object, and filled with vitreous enamel" - to which one might add "gouged". Bronze in not exactly easy to carve (and enamel impossible to carve) and the "looming, grotesque human head" is surely not carved but cast; also it has no visible enamel (left in place anyway) in the fairly decent photo. Maybe "It is a champlevé enamel piece with a looming, grotesque human head at its top", leaving the precise technical method vague unless the sources have more. "Plaque" is a bit misleading, when most of it is a hole. Also isn't ""copper plate underneath the drop contains enamel double-spiral designs" clearer? I presume this where it is? Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's it. Support, but I think my last comment should be addressed. Nice work! 21:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. Agree with last points, and have restated. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Although its origins and medieval provenance are unknown, croziers have always acted as ceremonial staffs for bishops and high-status abbots". "Although" wrongly implies that the first part of the sentence qualifies the second part. Also not "always" - below it says since 431.
  • "Rediscovered under uncertain circumstances," This is the third time you have said this.
  • "Henry Charles Sirr until his collection was acquired by the Royal Irish Academy on his death in 1844" The article on Sirr says he died in 1872.
  • "According to the archaeologist A. T. Lucas, the croziers thus acted as "the principle vehicle of [the saint's] power". Is the wrong spelling of "principal" in the source? Also, I would leave out "the" in "the croziers" if he is referring to croziers in general. If he is referring to specific croziers, you need to clarify.
  • "a chalice, a wine vessel and an arm-shrine, all now lost,[n 1] all of which would have been deposited at the burial site centuries after the saint had died" Repetition of "all" I think you could delete "all of".
  • What is a cross-slab?
  • "the crook (the curved head)" It is odd to explain the crook the 11th time you use the word (and the second time in the description section).
  • "Many of the patterns and decorations are influenced by the late 10th-century Ringerike and 11th-century Urnes styles of Viking art". Both here and in the lead you describe Viking influence, but not (unless I have missed it) what Irish and other styles influenced the design.
    • Comment: The NMI Wallace & O'F book has "a version of the mid-eleventh-century international style known as Ringerike", which is another way of looking at it, but the style is always mainly associated with Viking art. Equally it clearly relates to interlaced animals from Insular art and Celtic art stretching over the preceding several centuries, not to mention the general Animal style of Migration Period art, but I wouldn't venture onto the precise relationship without heavy referencing. Pages 215-219 in the same book are relevant, but rather vague. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok thanks. Very similar to the above is outlined in Moss p.311, where she says the "...croziers display animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom, but later examples reflect stylistic changes that took effect [from the 10th-12th c.'s ie...]....The Ringerike & Urnes styles in their Insular adaptations...[can be seen] on the croziers from Clonmacnoise and Lismore." I agree its best to keep close to the source here, and have added a one-liner (this is an introductory para to the description anyway, and the "animal ornament, interlace and key patterns in a native idiom" are detailed below). Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • She has a few pages earlier in the book on the process of adaption and the variations, but not in scope here I think. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dudley. Addressed with exception of last one. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-medieval Celtic art patterns". Pre-medieval is a vague term. Does it mean La Tène? Celtic art jumps from pre-Roman La Tène culture to post-Roman Insular art, but suggests that La Tene continued in Britain and Ireland into the Roman period, so it would seem logical to replace "pre-medieval Celtic art" with "La Tène culture", yet the La Tene article says that it ended in the first century BCE. I am not clear what style pre-medieval refers to. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn’t say, so have removed “pre-medieval”. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It cast from a single piece of wood, metal onto which is attached and inner, single binding and the metal plates for the crest and drop.". This sounds clumsy and vague. How about "It is composed of a single piece of wood, encased in copper alloy, with an inner binding and plates for the crest and drop." - adapt as correct of course.
    yes better. Done Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five zoomorphic snake-like animals described in silver cast rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight". "described" seems an odd word here. Maybe "Each side of the crook is decorated with four or five silver cast zoomorphic snake-like animals in rows of tightly bound figure-of-eight".
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knop" is not linked. Dictionaries define it as a knob, but from the illustrations it appears to be a bulge which goes right round the staff. Is it possible to clarify?
    Have linked to [wikt:knop|wikt]], and the lead says "protruding decorative metal fittings". They can fully wrap or be semi-circular. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary does not help as it just says knob. I think it would be better to add a note explaining more fully, including whether they fully wrap on the Clonmacnoise Crozier - and referring reader to the image of the upper knop, which is more helpful than any explanation in words. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, and have added a WIP section to Insular crozier which has images of four examples and is now linked to. Its not great; Youngs has a glossary that could use, but am traveling atm and do not have access to my book sources. Meanwhile, we also now say The shaft contains three large and ornately decorated barrel-shaped and individually cast knops, each of which fully wraps around the staff. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The positioning of the human figures is likely influenced by the late 9th-century Prosperous Crozier." I am not sure this is helpful in the absence of information about the Prosperous Crozier. It also sounds very speculative as you point out that there were presumably many other croziers which have not survived which could just as well have influenced the design.
    removed Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original ferrule remains is intact". I am not sure what you mean here.
    the ferrule is the original, but not sure it needs to be said. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might have obtained it directly or indirectly from the family of its hereditary keepers". What does this mean? The descendants of its discoverers?
    Added "a local family who would have looked after and protected the object over centuries", normally the family tat interited the land after the fall of the monastery, who would have hidden it for safe keeping. Needs a sperate article, which now now goes on my list :) Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for a challenging and perceptive review that significantly improved the page and makes FAC worthwhile. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • Can we define crozier in the opening sentence?
  • Similarly, "openwork" could use an inline definition ("holes" is probably a bit too simplistic, but it doesn't need to be verbose)
  • the principal vehicle of [the saint's] power I might suggest replacing "the saint" with "Patrick" if you mean that saint in particular and not saints in general.
  • The link on "zoomorphic" should be on the first use of the term
  • according to Murray, "spring from their heads and bodies forming knotted vegetal-like designs around them" Introduce Murray in the body (he's introduced in the lead but this is his first mention in the body)
  • "fell into ignorant hands, and were probably deemed unworthy of preservation" Ideally, you need a reference as close to the quote as possible (after the closing quote mark or end of sentence) for source-text integrity.
  • presumably meaning that their precious metal was melted Who is presuming? As written, it looks like editorialising; if it's the opinion of the source, it should be attributed in-text.

Very little to pick at really. Great work, and an interesting article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for the look, all addressed now. Re the first two, yes - its important to be accessible for general readers; it can be annoying reading an article on main page clearly written for specialists. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM; Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 26 March 2022 (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/Clonmacnoise_Crozier/archive1&oldid=1080388217"