Talk:Cross of Saint James/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this on. I am a bit concerned about if this page has enough to stand alone as its own article (essentially WP:NOTE). I see that the page received a go over by the Guild of Copyeditors (User:Lindsey40186), but I am still on the fence. I'll start the review for now but I'm hard-pressed to see how 7 sources (and one bible passage) can predicate a standalone page. Likewise, the page is rather small and I'd be surprised if there wasn't more information that could be included. Please use the  Done template, a strikethrough , or some other indication an issue has been resolved.

Sourcing

• What makes bakingmad.com (FN 4) a reliable source?✓ swapped the source with a better source
• What makes fsensations.com (FN 7) a reliable source? - Don't have a good answer for this
• Please check FN 8, I think FN 8 and FN 7 are backward. ✓

  Neither footnote states he was 'beheaded' only killed via a sword. Here is a better source: [1]Added source ✓

Images

• Most don't reach the threshold of originality to begin with.
• No issues noted.

Copy-vios

• Earwig picked up: '...in the form of a cross. It combines a cross fitchy with either a cross fleury...' ✓ Fixed

Prose

Lead

• A tad bit short in my opinion, really doesn't reflect the history or its uses.✓ added some more text

History

• The division between use and history seems rather arbitrary. Either expand these sections to justify the individual sections or merge the sections. ✓ Merged

Use

• There are a couple of famous paintings that use this cross. Just one example

File:Giovanni Battista Tiepolo - St Jacobus in Budapest.jpg not the best representation

Perhaps just mentioning it in prose would suffice, the page is already rather image-heavy. Etriusus (Talk) 16:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The image above features a red Christian cross on the banner. There are other images. As this is about a symbol, the images are important. However, I'm not sure where to draw the line.

Design

• Through google, I have found a source that gives a description on how the design changed over time. (not sure on the source's reliability though, It is referencing a youtube video so I'll see if I can track down the original citations.)

Comment after reviewing There is a lot out there that is not included in this page. While I believe that the article can likely stand on its own due to a large amount of info yet to be added, in it current form I am uncertain that it'd survive an AfD. As of now, it mainly is missing criteria 3a. To be frank, there really isn't a lot to comment on since its already been copyedited and has very little content. I don't like quick-failing nominations (as I feel it's unfair to nominators) so I'll leave the review open for now. If you need/want any help, feel free to ask. Etriusus (Talk) 19:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Etriusus: I didn't know that size might be a criteria, but I expanded the article from 1900 characters to 3000 characters. I think I dealt with most of the issues above, and I think it's covering GAN 3a. It's been difficult finding RS in English, But I can continue to work on it. Your comments are appreciated. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Evrik: So there is no hard and fast rule on page size. 1000 words, between 15kB-25kB, or ~2000-5000 characters have all been brought up as criteria but there is no formal rule. I rose the issue because just a cursory look online found more content that could be included and a 6kB sized page is really pushing some limits. Ultimately, GA reviewers have discretion as even short articles can be GA quality if they cover the topic in a sufficient amount of detail. One example: Si Ronda is a featured article (promoted at ~10kb in size). Granted, there are pages that can likely never reach GA status because they're so small and that then becomes an AfD issue.

  The work done so far looks excellent, I don't see as much of an issue with 3a anymore. I will give the page a full second pass later tonight. I'll also look for any additional content that might be worth including. Etriusus (Talk) 17:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Round 2

• 'of which the ends of the arms are forked and rounded.' is the source (FN 1) in the wrong place?
• 'The sword is said to represent both the courage of James,' I think a source got lost in the shuffle, neither the Acts passage nor the encyclopedia Britannica source supports this claim.
• viajarycelebrar.com is a blog, is it reliable?
• 'and carry out their daily devotions.' missing a source there

I placed FN 9 here, the content supports it (please double check)

@Evrik:: A few more issues to note. Etriusus (Talk) 21:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been travelling the last few days. I will look at this later this week. Thanks for checking in. --evrik ^(talk) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evrik, any update on when you can address this? I hate to prod you since I am aware you're busy IRL. Etrius ( Us) 01:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evrik It's been about ~10 days since you've been active. At this point, I am going to fail the page, mainly since I can't keep this review open indefinitely. I understand you are likely busy at the moment, and I am more than happy to pick this back up if/when you renom the page. Just ping me when you're ready. Etrius ( Us) 01:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.