Wikipedia:Peer review/Little Thetford flesh-hook/archive1

Little Thetford flesh-hook

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article class. In addition, I wish to prepare the article for a WP:GAN. Any comments would be welcome.

Thanks, Senra (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

The use is going to be problematic. The lead explains the purpose of a flesh-hook, but it's not until the uses section that the reader finds out it might not be a flesh-hook at all. The reason for calling it such should be explained (probably the person who discovered it had a guess), but then it needs to be emphasised that its use simply isn't certain. That would also be a good time to mention any other theories.

Are there any similar artefacts from the Bronze Age? This could tie in with the uses section.

"This particular find is one of 32 other such archaeologically significant finds, scatters, and excavations within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford": later in the article you say 32, so better pick one.

Agreed I say

"This particular find is one of 32 other such archaeologically significant finds, scatters, and excavations within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford." and
"The artefact is in the British Museum. Within 1 square mile (2.6 km2) of Little Thetford, there has been 33 finds of various kinds over the years, such as flints"

which is logically consistent, but confusing I agree. Also, I say

"From an analysis of 36 other Bronze-age flesh-hooks known to be in existence, ..."

which is a separate statment about something else but I agree can be confused with the other two statements. Will work on these.

What happened to the wooden bit? Did it degrade or was it lost? How is the object preserved?

Overall, I think it's lacking a bit of detail for GAN as it stands now. I think part of the problem is you could do with an article specifically on the flesh-hook. I'd recommend filing a request for help at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One on one collaborations. I know Witty lama (talk · contribs) is now no longer Wikipedian in resident, but hopefully this project will have long term effects. He may still be able to help you get in contact with the British Museum. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All above noted. Will work through them one-by-one --Senra (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)

I'm not convinced that this article could ever be expanded enough for GAN – that's not to say I don't think it should exist, just that I don't think the material is there. What I'd consider is either including this flesh hook (and the others) into a flesh hook article, or writing an article about all of the 32 finds from Little Thetford, not just this one. Perhaps even both of those. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All points noted. Will work on this but recognise it is not GAN material. Fair enough --Senra (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]