Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Carrying the Cross
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Christ Carrying the Cross edit
- ... that In medieval typology, Isaac carrying wood up the mountain for his sacrifice is the most common parallel for Christ Carrying the Cross (example pictured)?
Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nom at 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Timeliness and length: Prose size (text only): 5570 characters (945 words) "readable prose size" Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 67 edits ago on January 4, 2012. Good to go. Images in article have copyright tags that are correct. Hook is properly formatted, of the right length, interesting and neutral. The fact is cited in the article.
The article uses book source. Assuming good faith there is no plagiarism and they support the text as indicated.
There are a number of unsourced facts in this article. They need to be sourced. It looks like 1/3rd of the article is unsourced.
Not a DYK criteria but in checking to see what other articles did for external links to bibles, checked the talk page and it is inappropriately project paged. The article links to an external bible site like wikilinks instead of treating it like comparable links found in an article like Jesus Christ. This to me is a potential sourcing problem. Neither of these are necessarily reasons not to pass as DYK. Second opinion may be needed regarding this aspect.--LauraHale (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Projects corrected - thanks. I've added some sourcing, but most of the citations apply to everything since the previous citation, so I think the sourcing is pretty good, though not everything is cited to every source in which it is covered. Schiller, who has several thousand words on the subject, is the main source. Zuffi is only cited once, but covers the subject over several illustrated pages, and is online. Penny & Brown also give extensive coverage. The Bibleverse site is accepted as an RS for the texts (not sure if Wikisource is) and is very frequently used, though I expect some wikisource person will come along and convert them later - a dubious move imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
