Talk:Hallaton Helmet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hallaton Helmet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hallaton Helmet has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 24, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Hallaton Helmet may have been owned by a Briton who fought alongside the Romans during their conquest of Britain in AD 43?

British Museum Mid‑importance

	This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hallaton Helmet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Prioryman, assuming you don't mind getting another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one. (If you'd rather have a variety of eyes on your work, on the other hand, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to hand this off to someone else.) Comments to follow before the end of the day, hopefully. Thanks as always for your hard work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks for your help! Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks solid and ripe for promotion to me. I only have one initial concern, noted below, though I've also done some tweaking as I went--please double-check my edits and feel free to revert if you disagree. Also, I went ahead and archived the web sources for the article since it relies heavily on them--hope you don't mind.

"of immense importance regarding the understanding of Iron Age Britain" -- "of immense importance" is a bit subjective. Is it possible to attribute this opinion in the text? Otherwise, I'd suggest just sticking to more concrete statements of what was found there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that statement was left over from an old version of the article before I got my hands on it. I've rewritten it now to be a straight description of the site. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~The statement that the site is of "immense importance" needs sourcing or removal, as a subjective opinion (not that I disagree, of course).~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass