Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cross of Saint James/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2023 [1].

Cross of Saint James edit

Nominator(s): --evrik (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the heraldic badge name after the apostle James and used throughout Spain and Portugal. --evrik (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you @Nikkimaria: for the image review. I went ahead and removed the fixed px size and added alt text. I looked at WP:NOTGALLERY. First, I added the images at the suggestion of the GA reviewer. Looking at the four points listed there, I think the first three don't apply. As for the fourth, all the images have accompanying text, they are all referenced in one way for another in the text to illustrate the content. All the images are from the commons.
I fixed File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg, File:Saintjamesconquistador.JPG and File:Quevedo_(copia_de_Velázquez).jpg. Not sure how to fix File:Coat_of_Arms_of_La_Rioja_(Spain).svg. Suggestions? --evrik (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all have captions, but I wouldn't agree they all have corresponding text in the article. WP:IG outlines in some more detail considerations on when galleries are or are not appropriate.
When was the CoA first published? Also, when and where was File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CoA? According to Coat of arms of La Rioja, it looks like 1957. I can swap that out for File:Cruz de Santiago - Clavijo.jpg or File:Escudo de Santiago de Compostela.svg
As for File:Principe_de_Asturias.jpg, both the artist and subject died in 1937 ... but After having gone down through the rabbit hole, no answer as to publication date. Looking at List_of_works_by_Philip_de_László, I can't find that for any of his works. I can swap the image with this one: File:Frans Pourbus d. Ä. 005.jpg which was painted in the 16th century.
I have looked at WP:IG, and read this.

Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

I can expand this section to add more descriptive text. I didn't initially because it was already said elsewhere. Thanks for your insights. --evrik (talk)

Oppose from Unlimitedlead edit

Unfortunately, I do not believe this article fulfills the FA standards, and possibly not the GA standards either. As Nikkimaria pointed out, the article is mainly just a gallery of images, and there is very little information on the Cross of Saint James itself. Additionally, there are several sourcing issues, including but not limited to: the usage of a Bible passage as a citation, improper formatting of further reading sources, and the usage of antiquated sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the input. I disagree that Nikkimaria said this was an image gallery. She asked about it, and I have answered that above. The Bible is referenced where it describes the manner of the saints death. I sourced it as best I could. Of the 13 different language versions of this subject, this is the largest and most complete. In fact, the French article seems to be a copy/paste translate from a few days ago. I'm always looking for better sourcing, if you have any suggestions, please pass them along. --evrik (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Airship edit

There will always be questions about comprehensiveness with an article as short as this. Having had a good look around relevant sources, I think it's probably just about fine in that respect; one or two citation could even be removed (no need to cite a Bible passage if it's stated in a WP:RS)! I would however echo the image concerns above—absolutely none of the images in the gallery section "add to the reader's understanding of the subject", and all of them "cause unbalance to the article [with] similar or repetitive images". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SN43129: I'm extremely sympathetic Unlimitedlead's oppose. While there are no strict length requirements (but then, WP:FA? only has eleven requirements of anykind; everything else you see here is frankly custom and practice), WP:GVF makes it pretty clear that the criteria for FAs is basically that of GAs but writ large. Supersized in quality; but also, presumably, in quantity. At the moment, our lowest-length FA is Miss Meyers, at 680 words; this article is ~20% less than that. As a GA, it only has to be "Broad in its coverage"; as a FA it has to "stay... focused on the main topic". I do not see that happening here, and it is ambiguous as to what the "main topic" is. Heraldry? A cake? The crusades? At the end of the day, we have to follow the reliable sources. If RS have not covered a subject, however niche, then we cannot. We cannot write the RSs for them. If, in future, the topic is picked up in (high-quality) RSs, we can (and should) follow suit. But until then, we cannot write an article without the sources, and we certainly can't write a featured article without multiple high-quality ones. Also, AirshipJungleman29 makes excellent points per the gallery. SN54129 18:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agreed. My nominal reasons for opposing this nomination were the trivial matters above, but my underlying attitude towards this article are exactly what SN expressed concerns about. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- based on the above I think we need to archive this and work on improvements outside the pressures of the FAC system; I'd strongly recommend a Peer Review as well before any future nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cross_of_Saint_James/archive1&oldid=1161230353"