# Talk:Lokrume helmet fragment

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lokrume helmet fragment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

From a quick first skim:

There is no citation linked to Bruce-Mitford. Could you either create one, delete the reference or move it to further reading?
Added.
Boye needs an OCLC (249035137).
I don't think this one is needed, since there's a Google Books link. I see OCLCs as indicating what library to check a book out of, and here it can be checked out of Google.
An OCLC nails down a specific edition of a pre-1967 book. Strictly ISBNs and OCLCs are optional, although I have not previously seen them omitted when available. To be clear, no further action is necessary.
Makes sense, although in this case the GBooks version is the specific one that I used. I use OCLCs when a work has no other identifying information (ISBN, GBooks/HathiTrust link, jstor/doi, etc.), but they always feel a bit imprecise. Frequently one work will have multiple OCLCs due to inconsistent cataloging; this one seems to have at least two, and maybe an offprint as well.
As does Grieg (463022789).
Done.
Optional: could you put the bibliography in alphabetical order (Steuer)?
Am I missing something? Steuer's between Munksgaard and Tweddle.
Apologies. My inability to remember the alphabet.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Gog the Mild. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
"it was first published in 1907" "it" wasn't published. 'a description of it was ...'?
Changed to "It was first described in print in the academic journal Fornvännen in 1907"
"it is joined by" seems odd wording. Perhaps 'the others are'?
Done.
"Fornvännen" should be in italics.
Done.
A random check shows the sources supporting their cites. (No action required.)
The main article seems to start a bit in the middle. It only really makes sense if one has read the lead, while it should stand alone. Maybe reword as 'The Lokrume helmet fragment accounts for the eyebrows, and part of the nose guard, from a Viking era helmet. It is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide.' or similar?
Changed to "The Lokrume helmet fragment is the remnant of the eyebrow piece, and part of the nose guard, from a helmet. The fragment is 13.2 centimetres (5.2 in) wide." Left out the part about the Viking Age, since that's more analytical and therefore discussed in "Typology."
Not a lot to pick at. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, responses are above. Thanks again for the review. The fragment is never discussed by any one source in more than a paragraph or two, so I'm fairly pleased to be able to stitch together this article. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. My poking at the sources suggested that you have done an excellent detective job. This is possibly the best treatment of thre fragment in existence. No problem promoting to GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)