Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoxne Hoard/archive1

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 Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

---

Hoxne Hoard

Hoxne Hoard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hoxne Hoard/archive1

Nominator(s):The Land (talk), Fæ (talk), Victuallers (talk), PKM (talk), Johnbod (talk), ϢereSpielChequers (talk), Witty Lama

This article has seen explosive growth in the last week and a half thanks to the Hoxne Challenge, which has seen a tag-team of about a dozen editors working on it, with the support of the curatorial staff at the British Museum. For the last few days it has been essentially stable, and is likely to remain so. The Hoxne Challenge process means the article has been extensively reviewed throughout its development. The involvement of the British Museum experts, including people who have spent much of their careers working directly with the Hoard, hopefully means we can be unusually sure of meeting criteria 1b and 1c.

I am now confident that this article reflects some of Wikipedia's best work, so I am taking the liberty of nominating it as an FA. Lots of people have been involved in the development of this article: Fæ; Johnbod; Victuallers; WereSpielChequers; ChrisO; Mike Christie; Charles Matthews; Ceoil; PKM; WillowW; BabelStone; Paul August, and many more, so I am sure any issues raised in the FA process can be speedily resolved. The Land (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been a great team effort. There are a few choices to be made on whether to keep or split off some details and a few technical matters on layout (such as use of anchors) but I hope it is transparently obvious that the article is ready for review. Fæ (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to nomen; no dead external links. Shouldn't some of the people you mention be co-nominators? Ucucha 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Will fix the nomen issue. I expect that other people will come and co-nominate, yes :-) The Land (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Noting that the declared purpose of the "Hoxne challenge" was to get the article to FA level, so I think the consent of all these editors to a nom can be taken as read. Before the challenge the article was just a little stub. Also noting that, as a group effort, the article is excluded from the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and note. Ucucha 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the Harvnb links don't work, and both "Author year" and "Author (year)" is used. I assume this comes from using both {{harvnb|author|year|pages}} and [[#Author (year)|Author (year)]], p. #. Also, random references (such as 30–42 or 78–85) are formatted differently from all others. (Just a note, a more in-depth source/ref formatting review is still necessary). Mm40 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatted with {{harvnb}} throughout. - PKM (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reformatted the book citations. I have not addressed journal or newspaper citations. - PKM (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus on article talk page supports leaving the non-book citations in the footnotes. Fæ (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article is ready for that in-depth source/ref formatting review. - PKM (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks good. But why not try for a GA status first? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The main difference between FA and GA status is that a GA is 'broad' while an FA is 'comprehensive'. Because of the way this article has been developed, and the peer reviews from British Museum curators, we can be unusually confident that it reflects the state of knowledge in the subject. Anyone in any doubt about the intensity of review that this article has already undergone, particularly on completeness & accuracy, should have a look at Talk:Hoxne Hoard. The Land (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. I should disclose that I did some copyediting on the article, and made some other minor changes, but I was not a content contributor so I feel I can review the article independently. Here are some thoughts on the first couple of sections; I will add more comments over the next couple of days as I go through the rest of the article.
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead is a little choppy. The sequence is currently: "The hoard is the largest A. It was found on date B and contains C and D. It's also the largest E." I think A and E should be together; and it would make more sense to the reader to give it as "The hoard is C and D, found on date B; it is the largest A and also the largest E". The reader then knows what it is that is setting the records, before reading about the records. Generally I think the whole lead could be resequenced -- the valuation is given at the end of the lead, but chronologically (and in the body of the article) it would make sense to have it in the first paragraph. The statements that it is the largest hoard of a given type are essentially summarizing statements and could well be placed at the end with the comments about the significance.

    All the lead rearranged & some rewritten; it also needed to give the BM location much earlier. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why are some things cited in the lead and others not? This isn't really an FA criterion, but it does look ugly to have partial citations when some of the things cited are unremarkable. My own preference would be to eliminate all citations in the lead; they are (or should be) cited in the body, which is enough. As I say, not necessary for FA, but something to consider.

    NOTE - STILL O/S - I tend to agree, but have not removed any. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I'll leave it unstruck in case someone does want to respond but I would not oppose for this. Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why do you give only the earliest possible date for the hoard in the lead, and not some indication of the latest date? I understand that the earliest date is definite and the latest date is subject to more debate, but still it would be possible to let the reader know that it could perhaps be as late as the 440s.

    We used to have an end date of c. 450, but there was very strong resistance to including any such date at all from the BM experts, though it was also clear they thought 450 implausibly late. There is discussion of this on the talk page - peer review section. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I take The Land's point that by not mentioning a definite TAQ, the reader is inclined to assume, correctly, that the hoard dates to shortly after 407. I'm going to strike this as an FA comment; I have a suggested rephrasing but I'll leave that on the talk page since I think what you have suffices. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Changed my mind; it's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "The coins of the hoard date it after 407 AD, coinciding with the end of the Roman province of Britain." My formal grammar is not very good, but the verb here bothers me: what is the subject of "coinciding"? The coins? The hoard? The date? I think in the mind of the writer it was probably the act of burial that coincided with the end of the Roman province, but the burial isn't present in the sentence so it can't be made the subject. I think this needs rephrasing.

    It is the date, but it can be rephrased. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Rephrased. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Struck. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Another nitpicky grammar issue -- sorry if this is too picky, but it's bothering me. You have "Who buried the hoard, and for what reason, remain a mystery"; I'd use "remains" there, because although the rule for plurals generally says that two singular subjects connected by "and" take a plural verb, here the clause beginning with "and" is more of a parenthetical qualifier. I'm not certain of this one but would be interested to hear from a real grammar maven.

    I'll confess to changing "remains" to "remain". I felt that the original writer intended the predicate to have two subjects: "who buried the hoard" and "the reason for burying the hoard", both of which "remain a mystery". There seem to be two independent unknowns, not one qualified unknown; if we know one, the other is still unknown. We could finesse the issue by writing something like "The owners of the hoard and their reasons for burying it remain unknown." or perhaps more straightforwardly, "It remains unknown why the hoard was buried and by whom." Willow (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I never liked the "mystery" - they are pretty much the default in classical archaeology - & have rewritten. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks; I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Discovery and initial excavation" section, the last paragraph has four sentences in a run of five starting with "However", "Although", "However", and "Consequently". It's often possible to simply delete words like "however"; here, I think a little more than that is needed to make it flow smoothly.

    I agree! I hope that you approve of the new wordings. Willow (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's better. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Items discovered" section, an introductory comment prior to the list would be nice: something like "The contents of the hoard include:", for example. I would also like to know if the list is exhaustive, or if there are further miscellanea not listed.

    Done, adding in both respects. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    That does it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The last sentence in the lead says the find influenced a change in the law, presumably the 1996 act; there's a citation. I didn't recall a mention of this in the body; I think the last sentence of the body says more or less this, but is uncited. Should this citation be added to that sentence in the body?

    Yes, I'll add something. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The first sentence of "Subsequent archaeological investigations" has a couple of uglinesses: "field walking was carried out", and "at this time". How about: "In September 1993, the field of the hoard find was ploughed, and the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service surveyed the field, finding four gold and 81 silver coins. These are considered to be part of the same hoard." That avoids the passive construction and also avoids the need for the unfamiliar "field walking" which requires a link for explanation, though "surveyed" could still link to the same target.

    Went ahead and did this. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I tweaked it a little more. Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Just checking: is "simple", in "It had been placed in a simple wooden chest", from a source? No need to make any changes if so; I was curious because it's not really clear to me what "simple" means here. I would expect it to mean "devoid of ornamentation", but carvings would not be evident. Perhaps either the wood used (oak) or the lack of precious metal fittings allow the comment to be made. As I say, not an issue if it's sourced, but I was curious.

    I removed the word "simple" anyway as it is ambiguous and raises more questions than it answers. BabelStone (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what to do about it, but I think it reads oddly that the first items in the list of the hoard contents -- the coins -- have their descriptions repeated almost verbatim in the next paragraph. The description in the list could be compressed, perhaps by leaving out the dating, or at least the emperors; the subsequent paragraph might instead be rephrased to make reference to the list above it, though that would be harder to do gracefully. As it stands it feels quite repetitive.

    Proposed a solution on talk page for comment/consensus. - PKM (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    I resolved the replication by removing the details from the list. I also added the singulars of Latin plurals not ending in -s and removed the redundant "coins" after solidi, nummi, etc. in the coinage section. We have established by the list and the section head that these are types of coins. Better? - PKM (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Much. I don't think the Latin singulars are necessary, given the links, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This is just a suggestion; when I saw "suggesting that the coins had been measured out by weight rather than number", I did the calculation and found that if the measurer had counted 8 pounds out in 1/72 weight coins he'd have counted out 566 coins, rather than the 569 coins actually found. This made me much more inclined to believe the given suggestion. If you think others might find the calculation useful, it could perhaps by added in a note; I think it's too tedious for the article text itself.

    I also think that a note would be useful, but wouldn't 8 pounds of 1/72 weight coins be 8 × 72 = 576 coins ? The statement in the hoard that "The total weight of the solidi in the hoard is almost exactly 8 Roman pounds" niggles me as it does not tell us what the actual weight is, and by how much it is out from 8 Roman pounds. If someone could add in this information I think it would be useful. BabelStone (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "cliché forgeries": I had some difficulty visualizing a process for wrapping a base metal in silver to forge a coin, but the linked article made it clear that it was silver foil, which is immediately a plausible method. Could we change this sentence from "silver" to "silver foil"?

    Done, linked "foil" and "base metal". - PKM (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "Most also retain the original mint marks that identify where they were minted, illustrating the Roman system of regional mints producing coins to a uniform design": Does this mean that the coin design was uniform across mints, so that the mint mark is the only way to distinguish them, or that each mint had a uniform design which was not used by other mints? I think it's the former, but can't be certain.
  • The second paragraph under "Historical spread and minting" ends with two sentences that seem to repeat some information -- e.g. the overlap between reigns. Can these be condensed, or am I not seeing the reason for having two sentences here?

    Removed the duplication and translated terminus post quem for non-specialists. - PKM (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Looks good. Mike Christie (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The sentence starting "The production of coins" doesn't make it completely clear that it is talking about the ooins in the hoard, rather than all coins minted at the time; I suppose both readings are true but it's the hoard we're interested in here. How about "The production of coins seems to follow the location of the Imperial court at the time; for instance, the great majority of the Trier coins in the hoard are dated after 367, perhaps because Gratian moved his court to Trier at that date." From what I can read of Gratian that's not completely accurate because he and Valentinian were sharing the throne at that time, so perhaps it should be "Valentinian and Gratian". If it's worth clarifying that the point applies both to the hoard and all coins minted, then how about "...the great majority of Trier coins of this period are dated after 367, perhaps because Gratian moved his court to Trier at that date; the coins in the hoard reflect this distribution". That would be two semicolons in one sentence, so some more rephrasing might be needed.
  • The first mention of Catherine Johns doesn't say who she is; could it be at least "Historian Catherine Johns", or something more specific to her scholarship on the hoard if appropriate? And is she a notable enough scholar for us to go ahead and redlink her?

    She's a former Senior Curator for Roman Britain at the British Museum - will add that provisionally. - PKM (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    And done. - PKM (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not a MoS guru, but I wonder if the use of Template:details at the head of the Piperatoria section is correct. Surely the template ought to be pointing to an article on piperatoria in general, not just the "Empress" pepper pot. And isn't a link to that article, from within the section, sufficient?

    My usual practice would be to use {{main}} here, rather than {{details}}. Woould that be better? On further thought, since the seciton head is Piperatoria, not Empress Pepper Pot, I agree that neither {{main}} or {{details}} is appropriate. I removed the link, as there is an existing ink to Empress Pepper Pot in the next line of the text. - PKM (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit confused by the way the notes are placed on the quote box about the piperatoria. I'm guessing that only the third quote comes from the BBC programme, in which the positioning of the attribution for that quote needs to be changed -- it currently makes it look as if all three come from that programme.
    • Based on the comments in the Talk page re: pepper over time, I believe you are correct that only the 3rd quote is from the BBC programme. I reformatted the quote section to make this clear. - PKM (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that is not the case. If you look at the transcript of the show as referenced, all three quotes are in the transcript. Was there a reason not to look at the transcript? The additional footnotes to publications are to establish some context as to why the people being quoted were included in the programme. Fæ (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        In that case, how about replacing all the citations with a note superscripted to the attribution to the BBC, which explains what you've just explained? Then add those footnotes within that note. That would avoid any uncertainty for the reader. Mike Christie (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        I have reverted my change and it's back the way it was for now. Sorry for the confusion. - PKM (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        The attribution at the bottom is correct, but the reason I thought it was incorrect was that the citations on the other two quotes imply to a reader that the quotes are drawn from the works cited. I think something should be done to clarify the real source here; I suggested one solution but anything that makes this unambiguous is fine. Mike Christie (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        Merged footnoted citations used in the quotation into one explanatory note as suggested to avoid potential for confusion. Fæ (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

        I think that looks much better; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "long, tapering pointed handles": I think you either need a comma after "tapering" or no comma after "long".
    • changed to "long, tapering handles with a pointed end,..." possibly that comma could go too. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

      I like that comma. Mike Christie (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I suggest reversing the order of the pictures of the cochlearia; the article describes them before talking about the inscriptions so it would be better to have the pictures in the same order.

    Done. Good call. - PKM (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk)

  • The second paragraph of "Other silver items" is unsourced. I don't think anything here is controversial or likely to be challenged per the rules in WP:CITE, but wanted to point this out in case the undercite was an oversight.

Can anyone ref from the catalogue? Otherwise we may have resort to the online database. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref added. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • When I got to the tables of inscriptions I went back and looked through the discussion on this on the talk page. I feel that it would be best to create a separate article called something like List of items in the Hoxne Hoard, and move these two tables to that. That article could have as detailed a list as we have time to create, because it would not be primarily interpretive. If the BM experts are concerned about undue weight, splitting seems a reasonable answer; and I don't feel that hiding the tables fully addresses this.

    I would love to see this - a list sub-article would address the concerns of undue weight and also the concerns of having partial information (i.e. detail about some sections and not others). Witty Lama 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "Iron and organic" seems an odd section title; should it be "Iron and organic items"? If the organic material can't really be described as "items", how about "Iron items and organic material", or even just "Other finds"? I think "Other finds" might be best, actually, since you discuss some silver box fittings here.

    The box fittings might go with the silver section perhaps, but we should not change to "other". The section Iron (items) and Organic (materials) was specifically created at the suggestion of several of the curators (from various departments) who felt that if we were going to be listing gold, silver, coins then it would be remiss not to specifically point out the specific other materials that were found even if they're not so sexy. Perhaps just name it "Iron items and organic materials". 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Just "Iron and organic materials"? Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That would work. How about "Box fittings and organic materials"? Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That would give greatly undue weight to the box fittings. I've changed the section heading to "Iron and organic materials" now. Witty Lama 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    Good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think the "At most ... at least" rhetorical form works very well in the first paragraph of "Burial and historical background"; "at least" is read as "the least we can say", which doesn't work here. How about something like: "The hoard may have represented a moderate fraction ...; at the other extreme, it may have only been a minuscule proportion ..."?

    I have reworded this to remove "at least" and made a few other changes. "Fraction" implies smallness to my ear, so I have used "moderate portion" and "minuscule fraction". The repetition of "wealth", "wealth", "wealthy" also bugged me, so I change "fantastically wealthy" to "fantastically rich" - if this isn't idiomatic in British English, please advise or tweak! - PKM (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    That's much better, though to my ear "fantastically" sounds a bit overheated. Perhaps "extremely", or just "very"? I'm striking the objection, though; it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    "Fantastically" seems a bit overblown to me, too, but if that's the word used in the cited source, I am inclined to keep it. If anyone can check, let us know. - PKM (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the "Burial and historical background" section, I think the "Turmoil in Britain" section should come first -- it sets the context for the other three sections. As it stands it reads like a digression in the middle of the section. I'd suggest cutting the title, moving it up, and retitling the current first section to something like "Burial".

    Done. Let's see how this flows now. - PKM (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's a big improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the last two sentences in "Turmoil in Britain" should go; there's no need to take the reader past 450, surely. If you do keep them, I think "around 540" is too precise for Gildas.

    Made the date less precise for Gildas, "...in the first half of the sixth century..." was as far as I felt I could push it without unseemly digression. Revcasy (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That's certainly better. I'd really prefer to see both those sentences go, though; what value do they add for a reader? Mike Christie (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed that post-452 history is irrelevant, and the chronicle actually wraps up the section nicely, especially in its new position. I removed the last two sentences. - PKM (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "The mixed collection probably includes items made in Britain itself": does this refer to the Water Newton Treasure? The position of the citations makes it uncertain. What does "mixed" mean?

    Yes; mixed means that the larger pieces are a rather random assortment of pieces; that could be cut I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    It's fine if it stays, but if it does I think it needs to be clarified, as the intended meaning's not immediately apparent. I would have had a go at rephrasing this, but I don't want to merge it into the prior sentence without knowing if that citation covers this comment too. Mike Christie (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Rephrased and referenced Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK; I joined the two sentences with a semicolon as I think that flows a little better. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • "regarded for the value of their metal alone": I don't think "regarded" is the word needed here, though I can guess what's intended.

    "treated purely as bullion"? "valued for their metal alone"?

    I have rephrased it, "showing regard for the value of their metal alone." Revcasy (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    That works. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The picture of the Great Dish from the Mildenhall Treasure has such a long caption that it produces a lot of white space below that section. I think it could be cut somewhat: how about "The fourth century "Great Dish" from the Mildenhall Treasure is a fine example of large silver tableware of the sort missing at Hoxne, although it is believed the owners would also have possessed such pieces"? The location isn't so relevant that it needs to be in the caption -- it's already in the text.

    Done. - PKM (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think that's an improvement, and it eliminates the white space. Mike Christie (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of "Local context" largely duplicates the last paragraph of "Subsequent archaeological investigations"; I don't think I have a strong opinion about which is the better place for the material, but it shouldn't be repeated at such length.

    I removed the second paragraph of "Local context" entirely. I think this change improves the flow of this section, as the first and formerly third, now second, paragraphs connect together nicely, focusing on theories about the Hoxne area in Roman times rather than on modern discoveries. - PKM (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    I agree. Mike Christie (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why is there a "See also" link to Roman trade with India?

    To explain how the Romans got their pepper, and convey the idea that this was a real luxury, and a pepper pot in Roman times was something rather more exotic than a pepper pot today. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    I'm striking my comment, because that's a good answer, but I think it's better to have the links come directly from within the article, especially when they might baffle a reader as this baffled me. How about linking the article from the phrase "trade and use of pepper in this period", in the Piperatoria section? Mike Christie (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph of the Burial section discusses the possible ownership of the hoard, and mentions Aurelius Ursicinus; the last paragraph of the Local Context section revisits this to some extent. I can see why the topic is addressed in each context, but I think some repetition could be removed here.

    I removed the mention of Aurelius Ursicinus in "Local Context" and relocated the footnote to the earlier mention. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've completed my pass through. Thanks to everyone who worked on this; it's very impressive, given the short time it took to create such a solid article. I look forward to supporting. Mike Christie (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've switched to support above. Note to Sandy/Karanacs: I did not review images, or sources, and did not go through with an eye to the MOS. If I get time I will do a MoS pass. There are a couple of minor points of mine above that have not been addressed that I think would be worth fixing, but are not sufficiently important to prevent me from supporting. I continue to think that there should be a separate List of items in the Hoxne Hoard article, and that the table of inscriptions should go in that article, but since the tables are presented initially collapsed, and the text makes it clear that the inscriptions can't be used to deduce (for example) the names of the owners of the hoard, I think this is acceptable. Mike Christie (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- all of my comments have been resolved. Nice job and thank you guys! Renata (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments & questions by user:Renata3

• Comments. I was directed to the article by the Signpost, and it was actually quite a good read. I do have a few nitpicks, mostly citation requests for all kinds of different speculations (citations are very unevenly spread-out thru the text). Otherwise, nice job! And I hope this inspires further collaborations.
  • gold discovered in Britain, as of June 2010[update],[3] and the largest collection -> "as of June 2010" is very awkward. Move? Reword?

The as of date has been deleted by The Land as unnecessary, and I agree this is an improvement. BabelStone (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The first map of Hoxne area seems to be an inferior copy of a later map. Maybe replace with a more general locator map of entire Britain?

    Done. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: Under English common law, anything declared as treasure trove belongs to the Crown if no one claims title to it.

    This statement was borrowed from the Treasure trove article, where the reference is "Attorney-General v. Moore [1893] 1 Ch. 676 at 683; Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British Museum [1903] 2 Ch. 598.". However, as I have not seen the original reference I do not know if we can put it in the article. BabelStone (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    The Columbia Encyclopedia entry for "Treasure Trove" is succinct and covers this point; would that be a sufficient citation? - PKM (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    No, answers.com is a mirror site to be avoided. Search WP:RSN for discussions about it. Something like Goo, S. H. (2002), Sourcebook on land law (3 ed.), Routledge, p. 40, ISBN 9781859411889 is more authoritative as a summary and is viewable on Google Books if necessary.

    Y Footnote citation added. Fæ (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks, Fæ. I suspected that Columbia was a poor-quality source. - PKM (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge: There is some repetition in "local context" (2nd paragraph) with "subsequent archaeological investigations". Merge into one section.

    I removed the (former) second paragraph a couple of hours ago; okay now? - PKM (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Ok, I was reviewing this from a printed text that still had the paragraph. Renata (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: running east–west up to a distance of 20 metres (66 ft) on either side

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Reword: Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya[28] and are believed to have been discovered at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins).[29] -> suggest Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya,[28] possibly at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins).[29]

    The current phrasing is awkward, but changing to "possibly" does not seem to be the solution as that would imply that there is some doubt as to whether more coins were found at these two places than at Hoxne, which is clearly not the case (100,000 and 300,000 are both much large numbers of coins than at Hoxne). If there is doubt as to whether these numbers of coins were actually found at these two places, I would suggest changing to "Larger hoards of Roman coins have been found at Misurata, Libya,[28] and reputedly also at Evreux, France (100,000 coins) and Komin, Croatia (300,000 coins)". BabelStone (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    'Reputedly' works for me. The Land (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Done, using 'reputedly'. - PKM (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: It is unknown whether this is because coins from further East rarely reached Britain through trade, or because the Eastern mints rarely struck siliquae.

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: clipped coins are very unusual through the rest of the Roman Empire

    The ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The most important gold item in the hoard is the body chain, which consists of four finely looped gold chains, made using the "loop-in-loop" method called "fox tail" in modern jewellery, and attached at front and back to plaques.

was there, will readd Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

added Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it in the article. Renata (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Johnbod changed the page numbers of the reference a couple of sentences later to Johns 2010 from p.30 to pp.25-30, with the intention that the reference would then cover from the start of the paragraph to the point of reference. In deference to your punctiliousness I have added the same reference to the first sentence of the paragraph as well. BabelStone (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: the only Christian element in the jewellery.

I am fairly sure the ref for the subsequent sentence covers this one as well (but can't swear to this one) The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a citation needed tag as I can't find any expicit corroboration of this statement. I don't like this statement as it seems to imply that perhaps the jewellery comes from a mainly non-Christian context, but it is not balanced by a corresponding statement that there are no explicitly pagan elements in the jewellery. Johns 1996 page 95 discusses this piece, and states that it is "one of the many Christian emblems in the hoard" which seems to be putting the opposite spin on it than our article does. I would therefore recommend removing this statement. BabelStone (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the statement seems perfectly straightforward to me, and verifiable by looking at the descriptions of the small number of other gold items. We of course cover the other symbols elsewhere. But it may be best to remove it at this point. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference from the Inscriptions chapter now found & added. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: they may have been worn two on each arm, or possibly were shared by two related women.

    A few sentences down there is a ref to Johns p.42-53 - which is essentially the whole chapter on the bracelets. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The expression utere felix (or sometimes uti felix) is the second most common inscriptional formula on items from Roman Britain

    Can't swear that this is in Raybould 1999 which is the subsequent sentence's reference. But I think it is highly likely. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Raybould 1999 p.140 covers both sentences. BabelStone (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: The technique of fire-gilding with mercury was used, as was usual at the time
    • Citation found for the part before the comma. "Usualness" still uncited; {{cn}} applied. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Added reference to Johns 2010, pp.185-186 for the usualness -- this seems sufficient to me, and no need to directly cite the study by Oddy that Johns cites in a footnote. BabelStone (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: with fewer than ten similar finds documented
    • {{citation needed}}'d --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      This is I think on page 79 of Johns, which is missing from my photocopies. I think we should copy the point to talk until the ref is found. That they are rare can be refed to p. 80, which also says the Hoxne finds "significantly expanded the date range, the typology and the iconographic scope of the type". Maybe that could be added. I've taken out the 10 point anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

      It's a shame you had to take that out -- I found the fact of ten finds very useful. Renata (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: the pointed end was used to spear food as the Romans did not use forks at the table
    • {{citation needed}}'d --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Reference to Faas added, which covers both the spearing and the lack of table forks. I also removed the citation needed statement about where the spoon may have been held as it is pure speculation unless a good quality mural of Romans eating with these spoons is found. BabelStone (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: which probably contained organic material such as bristle, to make a brush.

All this para needs a ref; we forgot to take the page numbers. See above. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Ref needed: "Marcus Aurelius Ursicinus" is recorded in the Praetorian Guard in Rome in the period 222–235

    Supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. The Land (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref needed: that the hoard may have come from the 'Villa Faustini' that is recorded in Itinerary V of the Antonine Itinerary.

    Reference to Warner 1996, p.59 two sentences down covers the first three sentences of this paragraph. BabelStone (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Added footnote per Renata's comment below. - PKM (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Renata (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • Can you please add the refs to the article? Some more footnotes never hurt anyone. I was assuming that most of the refs I requested were covered, but it's better to state them explicitly. Renata (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Added the ones I could per responses above. - PKM (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Personally, I think it is just a little bit ridiculous to ref every single sentence. If I recall correctly, just a short while back someone went through the article consolidating consecutive identical references in the same paragraph, and there is a good chance that someone will do the same thing again when they see the same reference on consecutive sentences. The ideal solution would be to have some sort of markup that indicates the scope of a reference, so that the start point and end point of the text that is covered by a reference can be made explicit in the article if required (e.g. for FAs). BabelStone (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      The article does not come even close to having a ref for each sentence. There are still paragraphs with no refs at all or a single ref. And I personally see nothing wrong with more refs (when I write articles, I try to do one ref every two sentences). Renata (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      That is rather more than most people use, especially when they are using a relatively small number of high quality sources; it is certainly far more than any academic style would normally use. Personally I find referencing at that level is often a sign of weakness in an article, indicating a jumble of internet sources. And then there is Johnbod's Law. I think we want to avoid adding a new source (such as the BM collection database) for each of these points, so they should come from Johns 2010 where possible. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      I try to avoid over-referencing as well, and I agree it's unfortunate that we don't have any way of showing that a particular reference covers from point A to point B. But we don't. I really dislike references to the same source in adjacent sentences, unless there is a second source that also applies to only one of the sentences. However, in some of the places where I added a reference it seemed to me with my "reader hat" on that there were specific "facts" that should be supported with a citation. That said, all of the addition footnotes I added were made in two passes that can be backed out if there is consensus to do so. - PKM (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      That citations were needed is demostrated by the above when editors themselves said "It think ref below covers it, but I am not sure" -> if authors are guessing where the stuff came from, what would you expect from a casual reader? Renata (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Where you flagged up a paragraph I'd written/drafted/taken notes on, I was 100% sure that the statement you wanted was covered by a reference very nearby. In other parts of the article I wasn't quite so sure but often others were! Nonetheless, you have very helpfully flagged up a few statements which were indeed unsourced, we clearly need to resolve those. The Land (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      Yes don't forget how many authors there are here. Some of these points were made verbally by the author of the book. Another problem is that the book is very expensive and new; most libraries that will take a copy won't have it yet - I discovered today the UK National Art Library don't have it now, though they will. Is anyone going to the BM; the Room 2 library there must have a copy? Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

      Doesn't Witty have an electronic version of the book that he can use to check references for us? BabelStone (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

      Liam might be able to check, but he has a proof (with incorrect pagination), not the final work. The book is definitely available in the Paul Hamlyn Library at the BM. Some other sources (notably Guest) aren't, though! If no-one can drop by the BM we may have to delete a few sentences The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up: there are three citations missing. If you could only resolve the "fewer than ten finds documented" citation, I would be ready to support. Renata (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed it for now. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Doesn't this CNN story affect some of the claims regarding largest coin hoards found? Renata (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Added details and link to Frome Hoard at Hoxne_Hoard#Coins. - PKM (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  That addition about the Frome Hoard looks fine to me. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• I don't think that the first map adds any value, since it doesn't locate the place where the hoard was discovered, it doesn't locate Hoxne within the UK... it doesn't really do anything useful. If the farm on the map is the farm where the treasure was found, then that needs to be made clear.

  Replaced with locator map per this comment and Renata's above. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• The fourth century "Great Dish" from the Mildenhall Treasure is a fine example of large silver tableware of the sort missing at Hoxne, [99] although it is believed the owners would also have possessed such pieces.[2]

While I realised that this is referenced, I think it is too much to presume that the owners of the Hoxne hoard might have owned something as fabulous as that salver.

I believe the point of the referenced comment is that the other items in the hoard would suggest that the owners would have owned such fabulous serving pieces. It's referenced, and I recommed keeping it. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't so much about the Mildenhall item, as the near-total lack of silver plates, dishes etc from Hoxne. It is very likely that any family which owned silver pepper-pots or gold body-chains also owned silver plates, dishes, etc. Those things are missing from the Hoxne Hoard, so the Hoard most likely represent only part of the precious metal wealth of whoever buried it. That is the point Catherine Johns is trying to make. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; that the decoration would be as high quality as Mildenhall could not be presumed - the putative "Hoxne great dish" might not have been quite such a "fine example" (itself rather an understatement), but that similar large vessels would, in all probability, have been owned is repeated at various points in the book, and is an important point. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Response While the family was presumably rich, I would replace the Mildenhall dish with some more typical tableware, from the same or another hoard. It is misleading to cite a superb example as a typical example. Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a thing as "typical" in this context, given the number of survivals. The Trapain Law fragments, which were treated as silver scrap, possibly by the Roman authorities, are compared to the Mildenhall Treasure by many authorities - eg here at the end. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a more modest example of a silver plate from the Mildenhall Treasure which may be better to use. BabelStone (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But immodesty is the point we are trying to make here! Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still a very fine and richly decorated item that only a very wealthy household could have afforded. BabelStone (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to the body ornament, there is a sentence which has been tacked onto another sentence with a nut and bolt (semi-colon) rather than a linking word. The sentence is This may have been a family heirloom. It isn't clear whether it is the solidus that may have been the heirloom, or the body chain itself. If you mean the solidus then put "which" in place of the "this" and remove the semi-colon. Also, I have to question whether it is possible to assume that the coin was a "family heirloom". :Amandajm (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again, the assumption is in the reference, and I don't think we should second-guess the experts. But I agree the wording is confusing and I am making the change you suggest. Thanks for catching that. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  The discussion of the body-chain in the sources says that the chain (at least in its current form) is likely dated by the coin, so the chain was made (or last modified) about 30 years before the Hoard was buried. The dimensions of the chain and its nature make it extremely unlikely that the chain was an everyday item. So the body chain is a bit like a wedding dress, kept though it may never be worn again. At least that's what Johns seems to think. The Land (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, the reference also says that the coin had been previously mounted as a pendant, which is why I understood the coin to be the heirloom. Does my edit need to be revised? - PKM (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• If the chain was new when the coin was added, then there is a bottom date for the chain. If the coin was previously used as a pendant, then this predates its use on the chain, by any number of years. On the other hand, the chain may have been modified. It would be interesting to know whether such chains commonly have a coin as the back fixture. Ideally, whatever was at the back would be flat.
• The body chain is not large, but in point of fact, it isn't the bust size that is relevant. It's the chest size, which changes far less during a woman's lifetime than the dimensions of her bust are likely to do as a result of pregnancy, hormonal changes and so on. If the chain was made for a particular woman, it would go on fitting unless she put on a great deal of fat around the ribcage. Although it is obviously not an everyday item, it is certainly one that could be worn for "special occasions". Moreover, if the woman did become too fat for it, the chain could be worn above the breasts, rather than under them. Amandajm (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Yeah..... I know,.... it's the dreaded Original Research again..... but I have this one qualification that cannot be denied.... I'm female. And I can tell you this, if Liz Taylor owned that thing, she'd replace the pearls with mega-diamonds and wear it to dinner on alternate days.Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Maybe you should strike/hide this discussion so it doesn't confuse people reading this and looking for FAC discussion? The Land (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No, The valid point that is being made here is that although it is suggested in the article that this may have been an "heirloom" (and there is a reference to support it) firstly it needed to be sorted out what the heirloom was, the whole or the coin. I think we have done that. Secondly, why was it an heirloom? To say that the object was an "heirloom" suggests that it was 1. Old, 2. had belonged to that family for more than one generation 3. was valued for its association rather than simply as a piece of jewellery. We are in no position to make any of these assumptions.

The drawing is to indicate that it ought not be presumed that the object wasn't worn regularly, just because it is of small size. I'm not suggesting it was an "everyday" item, but it might have been a favorite piece of jewllery, and worn for many "special occasions.

May I explain the hypotheses about the dating and use of the body-chain? You will find the relevant discussion in Johns 2010, pages 27-29. It is the coin mount that is the re-used element. It is a third-century pendant that would originally have contained a 3rd-century or 2nd-century coin. It has been taken off an older necklace, adapted by adding a backing and new connection rings, and incorporated into the 4th-century body-chain as a clasp element. Then a new, 4th-century coin has been inserted into it. It is suggested in the publication that the issue date of the coin, which shows little or no wear, may date the manufacture of the body-chain, making it not an 'heirloom', but a piece that was probably made about a generation/30 years before the earliest possible date of deposition of the hoard - that is, something that could have belonged to somebody still living at the time of the deposition. The suggestion that the chain might have been a bridal ornament is based on the symbolic and iconographic connections of body-chains, for example, associations with Venus and Cupid, and on the rarity of the type. They are always shown worn in the same way. If the owner had wished to wear it on a frequent basis, and it no longer fitted her, she would have had its form adapted. It is true that the 'chest size' changes less than the 'bust size' over the decades, but it does change, often very substantially. Relatively few women can wear the same bra size (underband size, e.g. 34", 36" etc.) at 50 as they could at 15, regardless of the cup size (e.g. A, C etc.) Jewellery was frequently adapted and recreated, both in the Roman period and much more recently. Size: no, this chain really could not have been worn by a mature lady with an imposing bust. You will note in Johns 2010 that experiments were carried out with string and metal rings to establish the size of woman on which it would have been comfortable. The fit is close, and the size of the breasts as well as the size of the rib-cage affects it: too much breast tissue would make it impossible for the chains to avoid that flesh, and you would not have been able to clasp it, even if the bone-structure was slight. A bride at this period would be likely to be an adolescent girl. The body-chain could also have been worn comfortably by a child, but in view of its very high value and the symbolic associations, this possibility was rejected. The speculation that the body-chain was not in current, everyday use is not predicated solely on its identification and likely dating, but on the character of all the jewellery in the hoard, which is seems likely to have been valuables in storage rather than everyday use: this is discussed in several places in the published catalogue, but particularly on pages 58-9. AgTigress (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another small point in response to amandajm's queries about the size of the body-chain and of the person who wore it: the author of the catalogue (Johns 2010) is also female, familiar with the fitting of clothing and jewellery on the female form.  ;-) AgTigress (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. Things to fix:

• The meaning of "debased" (in subsection Coins) will not be clear to a lay reader and needs a brief explanation or link.

  I have wikilinked the first occurence of "debased" to Debasement. BabelStone (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the adequacy of the account of references to East and West in the "Historical spread and minting" section, eg. "...Western mints in Gaul and Italy". Are we talking about two empires? Is that the reason for the capitalisation? And if two, why do we have "rival Western rulers Honorius (393–423) and Constantine III (407–11)" whose dates overlap? Can one empire / region have two "rulers" simultaneously? Although the overall point of this section was clear, the detail tripped me up somewhat.

  Yes, there were two Empires, the Eastern and Western. Constantine III was a usurper who claimed rulership of the Western Empire in opposition to Honorius and struck his own coins to increase his legitimacy. Troops loyal to Honorius defeated Constantine and he was beheaded in 411. This is covered in the historical context section, but perhaps we need to clarify elsewhere ("Honorius's challenger Constantine" or similar wording? ) - PKM (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've rewritten Hoxne_Hoard#Historical_spread_and_minting to be clearer, with links. Does this resolve your comment? - PKM (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• First para at end of "Local context" lacks a ref.

  Fixed in rewrite, see next comment. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure how to reconcile the following sentence from "Local context" with the diverse hypotheses about the hoard outlined in the "burial" section: "The owners of the hoard appear to have intended to recover it, judging from the evidence found at the site; it was presumably not merely a featureless field at the time."

  "presumably" is never a good word to use in a FA, and in this case it certainly does leave the reader wondering why such a presumption may be made. However, this statement does fit in with the "Subsequent archaeological investigations" section, where it is stated that during the 1994 excavation a post hole was found at the southwest corner of the burial pit, which the cited source suggests may have been for a marker post to help the depositors of the hoard locate it at a later date. BabelStone (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  In Hoxne_Hoard#Burial_and_historical_background, I moved the last sentence from the "Burial" paragraph, about Roman settlement near Hoxne, and consolidated it into "Local Context". I believe this improves the flow between the subsections. I did some other modest rewrites to avoid replication of content re: settlement nearby and cultivation of the field. There were also conflicting locations for the Roman settlement - one place said Scole or Stoke Ash, the other definitively said Scole - I have used "Scole or Stoke Ash" and consolidated the refs. If current scholarship is definitive on Scole, we should remove Stoke Ash and drop the conflicting references. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  There definitely was a Roman settlement at Scole -- the cited Roman Grey Literature Stage1 Database #1081 states that in 1992 "Evaluation work carried out in response to this proposed road scheme [A140, Scole Dickleburgh Improvement] comprised fieldwalking, metal-detecting, and the excavation of trial-trenches ... investigation indicated that there was a lengthy Roman occupation of the site, presumably the result of linear development along the Roman road, spreading south from the large settlement at Scole, just north of the river." I believe that the confusion between Scole and Stoke Ash refers to the supposed location of "Villa Faustini", as a Google Books search shows that both these places have been suggested as the site of Villa Faustini. But regardless of where Villa Faustini was, there was a Roman settlement at Scole, so I suggest removing the mention of Stoke Ash. BabelStone (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done, and added back in the distance between Scole and Hoxne. Thanks for sorting that out. - PKM (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  This is all better, but there is still the underlying issue. The reader first encounters, under "burial", the idea that there are several different hypotheses about the reasons for burial, including the possibility that it was the proceeds of a robbery. None of these hypotheses is expressed as having stronger support than the others. However the "local context" section, which comes later, appears to favour the 'burial for future recovery by owners' hypothesis as though it were the only likely one. If it is indeed the prevailing view, then something needs to be done about the para under "burial". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  I've boldly removed "The owners of the hoard appear to have intended to recover it, judging from the evidence found at the site" as it is both too speculative (how could anyone be sure unless the depositors had left a note with the hoard?) and too vague (what evidence exactly?). I don't think the article suffers from the removal of this sentence, and it removes the conflict with the Burial section. BabelStone (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Note that the finding of the inquest was precisely this, as the "inquest and valuation" section makes clear - without an animus revocandi it would not have been treasure trove. Perhaps it could be restated that way; the court heard expert testimony from the BM people etc. The evidence is the nature of the packing, and that (unlike Thetford) it was not a votive deposit etc. I think the point should be included in some form. There are three theories outlined higher up, & all feature an intention to recover, though the wording of the second might make this unclear. I'd boldly put it back. I don't myself see much conflict with the burial section. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should say "whoever buried the hoard ..." instead of "owners". That could include thieves, if thieves there were. - PKM (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't mind if someone puts it back with some improved wording, but personally I think the section is better off without it. My personal thoughts are that it certainly was a hoard hidden by its legitimate owners temporarily during a time of crisis, with the intention of recovery at a later date, but theories as to why it was buried are rightly put in the 'Burial' section, and I can see no real need to revisit the most likely theory in this section. BabelStone (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to avoid getting too deeply into the tests for Treasure Trove status that were inherent in the old common law, and which have been dispensed with under the 1996 Treasure Act. The material (gold or silver = 'coinable metal') was crucial, which meant than any item not made of those metals could not be Treasure Trove, and the other requirement was that the unknown original owner(s) buried the goods with the intent of recovery — the animus revertendi. Of course it is hard to demonstrate! This was one of the reasons why the new law, after many false starts, was eventually written and passed. That, and the fact that the archaeological integrity of a mixed deposit (e.g. a hoard of gold coins in a ceramic pot) was not observed: the pot would not be Treasure Trove, and would belong to the landowner, while the coins would be TT, and would belong to the Crown. (The Medieval law was not framed with the requirements of archaeology in mind, of course). It was a nightmare to negotiate acquisition sometimes. There are also very complex issues surrounding the idea of 'votive deposition', since votive deposits frequently are recovered and recycled: if you put money into a church collection plate, that is a votive gift, but it will be used and will return into circulation. Votive status should not have prevented a Treasure Trove verdict, though in practice, it often did. In the present state of knowledge, it seems highly likely that the Hoxne assemblage was a classic safekeeping hoard. The reasons for that view are set out in detail in Johns 2010, pp.202-204, and frequnetly referred to elsewhere in the volume. Interpretation of hoards as votive or ritual is currently fashionable in the academic community, so not everyone will agree: Guest and Johns actually take different views about Hoxne at present. There are certainly absolutely no characteristics in the Hoxne group that normally indicate a temple/church hoard, for instance. It consists of private, domestic (non-liturgical) wealth (as does Thetford, incidentally). AgTigress (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• In "Local context": "Soon after the hoard was discovered..." - in this case it needs to say whether the Eye Hoard or Hoxne Hoard is meant.

  Done. BabelStone (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The final sentence of "Acquisition, display, and impact" needs a reference, and this phrase sounds imprecise and odd: "that considers technology, incentives, and the needs of scholars."

  Added refs (one for Hoxne's influence on the new act, one for the character of the new act), and reworded last part of the sentence. BabelStone (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Loved reading the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images, please ping in someone to review the images (I'd love to see nominators take on this responsibility when other hurdles have been passed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have just done a quick run through the images. They appear to be in order, however the "Description" field in most cases is poorly filled out. For example, in only a minority is the actual location in which the photograph was taken explicitly stated. Because of the context of this particular article - the 2010 collaboration between Wikipedians and the British Museum - we can be reasonably confident about the authenticity and integrity of the images, but I would recommend to participating editors that the descriptions be improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the summaries in Commons, chiefly by adding the British-Museum-object template where needed and using its "detailed description" field. I have also tweaked the existing descriptions somewhat. - PKM (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MSH on repetition of wording in section headings:
  • 1 Discovery and excavation
    • 1.1 Discovery and initial excavation
  • 2.3 Silver items
    • 2.3.2 Other silver items
• Done those. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also hidden tables in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

See MOS:COLLAPSE- why is article content hidden? That content won't mirror or print; if it's worthy of inclusion in the article, it should show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There was disagreement on the talk page as to how useful these detailed tables were; most felt they were too long for one thing. The content is definitely of secondary importance. Can we resolve this there? Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that they're not too long at all, and our readers should be able to see them (on print and on mirrors). If they were so long, the solution would be to move them to a daughter article, but there's no reason to have hidden content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now uncollapsed. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 File:HoxneMap.jpg should have a scale, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will need to create a scale and add it to the bit map based on the original web site which does not have a visible scale (I can find). Should be done in next 2-3 hours Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at this and found that I could not add a scale without undermining the accuracy or kludging the result. If someone can accurately add a guide to scale to HoxneMap.jpg and retain the position then please volunteer. I suspect I would need new tools. I suspect "Paint" and a ruler may be able to do it... but I no longer have MSPaint. Other possibility is to just note that Eye and Hoxne are just over 5 km apart. I'll continue to try. Victuallers (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Google-maps style scale. Does this work? - PKM (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, we have done the same job twice (I finally got a copy of MSPaint). I think I have undone my change in Commons, but the caching is confusing. Happy to go with PKM's version Victuallers (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid we'd end up doing the work twice. I am happy to go with whichever style folks like. - PKM (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it on the article pic, no doubt because of caching which will resolve itself, but I can see it on Commons. I think this was the only remaining issue. If anyone thinks there is anything else, could they please note it here. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Be consistent, either italicise names of newspapers or not, but right now you've got The Guardian in both forms. (I lean towards italicised, personally).

• Fixed (they were using different templates -- changed to both use "cite news" template). BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency again, either it's Archsearch Archaeology Data Service, or it's just Archaelogy Data Service.

• Fixed. BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref 12 (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-811-1/preservation_dissemination/csv/RomanGreyLiteratureStage1Database.csv) is a deadlink.

• Fixed. BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Current refs 13, 28, 39, 57 lack accessdates, and publishers as well as all other bibliographical information.

Done, all "British Museum collection database" with access date, titles added if not just "coin". Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The link to the Britannia article should state that it requires a JSTOR subscription.
  • I'm uncertain about this, is there some standard guidance that applies? I thought that though a non-subscription alternative was preferred, then subscription links are preferred without warnings. Note that WP:ELREG applies to external links but not in-line citations. I would be against adding warnings against every JSTOR article reference. Fæ (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I forget if there is a standard FA approach. I tend to put the link at the end, as " [www.jstor.org/stable/526995?origin=pubexport JSTOR] " , which is enough warning for most. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to prefer a doi number rather than a link to JSTOR, personally, but general practice at FAC is to either use doi's and no link in the title of the article or to note that it's a subscription based service if the link to the title is used. DOIs have the advantage of not cluttering up the listing as well as they help establish the bonafides of the publication, as they aren't usually given to fly by night journals. (Granted, lack of one doesn't mean the journal's unreliable, but it can indicate something needs to be investigated further.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to the reader to warn that the link requires a JSTOR subscription. I don't have a JSTOR subscription, and when I click on the link I am shown the first page of the article and information on how I can access the whole article if I want to, which I find useful even though I cannot read the whole article. Can we agree that a JSTOR warning is not essential, and move on?

I, however, do see such a advantage. And it's been general practice to require such at FAC. When I click on a link, I expect to get the whole article, and would expect that if there is some impediment to that, it'd be noted in the bibliography entry. It's the same as noting that something is a Word file or pdf, it's courtesy to the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Issue/volume number on the Minerva article? doi also?

• I have added the volume and issue numbers, but I have no idea what a Digital object identifier is. BabelStone (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• DOIs are basically another way to link an article, see above. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• But where do you find them? The article is uninformative on this, and none of the 47 FAQs on the DOI system website page address this. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I usually find them either on the JSTOR/etc. abstract page or through Google Scholar or through using citationbot on the page. For example this article gives the doi right at the top. You don't need any links, either doi or jstor or whatever for citing offline stuff, it's just a convience for readers and other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I echo all that Johnbod says about the unhelpfulness of the Wikipedia article and the DOI site. I wasted a good half hour yesterday searching in vain for doi's for the Minerva and Britannia articles -- I do not believe Minerva has doi's at all, and although you can get the doi for 2005 and later issues of Britannia from here, I have been unable to find them for the 1994 issue. I do not think that the lack of doi's for these two articles should be a showstopper, and would ask Ealdgyth to kindly let us move on from this. BabelStone (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest starting with WorldCat when looking for a DOI. If it is not there then it probably does not exist. Not all journals use DOIs, they cost money and are not mandated. Some organizations use their own systems of using a URL. I agree this is a non-issue as there is no clear Wikipedia consensus on marking or replacing inline citations using URLs that require a login and in practice JSTOR provides the abstracts for free without login. Fæ (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• My concern is that I've not ever run across Minerva in my researches, and while I don't research in exactly the same subject as this, I'm close enough that I've generally run across all the main art/coinage/archaeology journals that cover the time period. Who's behind the journal? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a wikilink to Minerva (archaeology journal) and added its issn, which should enable you to find out all you need about it; although in the case of the cited article, the reputation of its author, Catherine Johns is beyond doubt. BabelStone (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Minerva, as you have obviously discovered by now, is not a learned journal of the kind accessible online only through JSTOR, but a well-established and reputable popular glossy magazine on ancient art and archaeology, featuring articles by excavators and curators written for a general, rather than specialist, readership: it is a perfectly appropriate source to cite, in the same way that Apollo or The Burlington Magazine are authoritative references in art-history. AgTigress (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Either give the place of publication for all your books, or none, right now some have it, some don't, it's a consistency issue.

• Done -- removed "place" parameter for 8 citations that used it (seems a lot easier to remove it for the 8 that have it than add it for the 19 that don't; and anyway the place of publication has very little value in the modern, international world) BabelStone (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - beginning a look-over now. I will jot queries below: the points below are quibbles and no deal breakers. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

which coincides with the end of the Roman province of Britain - "end of Roman occupation of Britain"? Just scans oddly for me, as I keep thinking some sort of verbal noun should come after "end"....?

maybe which coincides with the end of the Britain as a Roman province. ?? I'm guessing that "occupation" is being avoided as many Romans were still in Britain. Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the province, and the military presence, which ended. The Romano-British population & culture which had built over the preceding 3 1/2 centuries remained, attempting to organize itself. The BM people were, I think rightly, keen to avoid the common idea that "the Romans" just left, leaving "the British". Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Made change to "with the end of Britain as a Roman province" Victuallers (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices with which these vessels might have been filled - sounds forced, I'd prefer the more natural and equally grammatically correct "However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices these vessels might have been filled with" (I don't subscribe to the "thou shalt not end a subordinate clause with a preposition") - not a deal-breaker though.

I agree, but I suspect there are many who would object to the closing preposition. So suggest that we leave as is. Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices for which these vessels might have been used , or However, pepper is only one of a number of high-status spices which these vessels might have contained/dispensed ? Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First one is slightly better, actually second one I don't mind either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with the "dispensed" one, unless anyone objects. 16:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

roughly contemporary Thetford Hoard - should that be "contemporaneous"?

I'm guessing you are thinking of contemporary as meaning "modern", but another meaning is "at the same time" and is synonymous with "contemporaneous" which I think is less accessible. OK? ... and thanks for the support. Victuallers (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "contemporaneous", which should be used only for much closer time-scales, imo, & that of dictionaries too I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll pay that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.