Talk:Queen Lupa

Did you know nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Pico Sacro}}

20 minute review for Women in Green editathon

Hello! As requested, here is a 20-minute assessment of this article's readiness for GA status.

The first thing to note is that this is really short. Both by byte-count and word-count, it's only just outside the hundred shortest GAs, and while there is no formal requirement that a GA have any particular length, some reviewers may consider that it is just too short to pass at all – there is still no consensus on whether that's a valid reason not to promote. At any rate, the shortness of the article means that it might well be scrutinised more thoroughly than a longer article which "looks" more like a GA would be.

Structurally, I don't like the article as it is at the moment. I don't think §Background accurately describes what that section covers, and I think having almost all of the article in a single section, followed by a one-sentence §In popular culture section is a sign of poor organisation. More significantly for GA status, the lead does not currently summarise the article content, and the content about the Golden Legend is not found in the body of the article: this violates MOS:LEAD and consequently criterion 1b. My suggestion here would be to re-divide the article into sections on §Legend (covering the first two paragraphs of the current §Background section and adding a mention of the Golden Legend, and Legacy, which would cover the final paragraph of §Background and the §In popular culture section.

Looking at sourcing, I would be prepared to answer the following questions:

• Who are TranslatioMedia (currently source #2) and why are they a reliable source
• Why is Xacopedia a reliable source? Their about page talks about Web 2.0 and users expanding their articles; does this not fail WP:UGC?
• Why is the tweet by Manuel Gago Marino an acceptable use of self-published sources?

Glancing at the sources, Pazos (2016) seems to talk quite a bit about art depicting the myth: is there anything to say about that in the article?

Hope this is useful! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• • @Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you. BTW, you comments sparked some curiosity in me. I looked at Wikipedia:Good article statistics and Wikipedia:Database reports/Good articles by size/4. Queen Lupa is currently at 2671 B (449 words) "readable prose size". At this moment it would be 39191 of 39707 by word count and 39192 by 39707 by proze size --evrik ^(talk) 22:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen Lupa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Evrik (talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this Women in Green's 6th edit-a-thon! I'm happy to take this on for review, as I'm very interested in Spanish history and folklore. Normally I do section-by-section comments, but this article is short enough that I'll provide comments on prose, sourcing and broadness instead.

Prose

• You can replace the inter-language link to Duio with a wikilink, as that article exists here now.
• Why is the etymology of her name in a section about popular culture depictions?

Sources

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Link to TranslatioMedia source is dead. You should provide an archived url.
• What is (was?) TranslatioMedia? Seems like it was a tourism website related to the Camino de Santiago. How is it a reliable source?
• Spotcheck: [2] Where in The Golden Legend does it say she "lived along the Portuguese Way in Castro Lupario"? I can't find this detail in the linked webpage.
• The Golden Legend is cited in two separate citations as [2] and [5]. These should be merged.
• Spotcheck: [3] Google Arts & Culture page doesn't appear to reference the Codex Calixtinus or Iria Flavia.
• Strikes me as odd that we're citing a Google Arts & Culture page for anything other than images of art.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• In the vast majority of cases, I think citing a tweet is unacceptable for a good article. Are there really no better sources you could provide for Gago's thoughts than his personal social media?
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Another tourism website? Are there really no better sources on her purported resting place?
• Spotcheck: [11] Cited source never mentions the painting in Prado. It appears to only verify the second sentence here. An inline citation needs to be provided for the painting.
• Packing up the Places is a travel blog! Not good enough for GA level.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Failed verification. Nothing in this source about the etymology of her name, where's the source for that?
• A cursory search on Google Scholar brings up 80 results for "Queen Lupa"[1] and 174 results for "Raíña Lupa".[2] Of the dozens and dozens of reliable scholarly sources in this search, I don't see any that have been cited in this article. Looking at excerpts from some of them, it quickly becomes clear that there is still a lot of information that could be added about this character.

Broadness

• What does this legend have to do with the Camino de Santiago? Given multiple websites related to the Camino mention this story, I'd expect there to be details about it.
• Modern analysis of the legend being a single paragraph seems way too short. So short I just have to assume that a lot of stuff has been left out.
• Do we really have nothing else to say about her depictions in popular culture? Lupa was depicted in dozens of paintings, why is only one mentioned? And why this one in particular? Were there no modern media portrayals of her before the 2016 play? Surely that can't be the case.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

When I first started reading this article, it quickly became clear that it would not be meeting the criteria for reliable sourcing (2b) or broadness (3a). Having now reviewed it properly, I can confirm that is the case.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is clear and understandable, no obvious mistakes or errors.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section tells me very little about the subject. It should be rewritten and expanded a little.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   One duplicate source needs merging, but otherwise good on formatting.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   There's quite a few sources in this that I would consider questionable, from tourism websites to travel blogs to Twitter threads. Given the extent of scholarly research on the subject, I don't understand why we must resort to such sources as these.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple cases where the text isn't verified by the cited sources. Inline citations for this information must be provided.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No clear cases of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Checked manually and with Earwig's tool.[3]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is absolutely no way that this article addresses all the main aspects of the topic. There is barely any information provided on literary and historiographical analysis of the character. The popular culture section also seems shockingly short, given that this is a character from popular folklore that has been depicted for hundreds of years.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It's focused, yes, but way too short.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is very neutral, with no clear bias one way or the other.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reverts in a year of history. Only changes have been in response to 20-minute review.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Leading image is a 15th century painting; gallery includes a newspaper page published before 1929, a Creative Commons photograph of a building taken with freedom of panorama, and another 15th century painting. All have valid PD or CC license tags.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images relevant to the article. Many more images can be found in the Galician article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is still a long way off what I would consider worthy of a good article rating. The use of such questionable sources when so many scholarly sources on the subject are available (but unused) is a big blocker for me. But the main problem is broadness. When an article is this short, I usually assume it's because there aren't that many good sources on the subject. This is clearly not the case for this subject, and it is very clear that a mountain of information is left out here. I'd expect a lot more information on scholarly analysis of the legend, as well as some more about Lupa's pop culture depictions. I personally think this would qualify for a quick-fail, but as this is for an event, I'm happy to give you a week or two to work more on this article. Feel free to ping me if you have any further questions or if you feel like you've made substantial improvements that address the issues I've found here. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Responses

@Grnrchst:, thank you for taking the time. My apologies if I messed up the sourcing. I think I got it all straightened out now. My responses to you comments are below. --evrik ^(talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Duio link - fixed
• Etymology 1 - Moved
• translatiomedia link - fixed link
• lead section rewritten
• translatiomedia RS - I'm unsure what the website was. I used it because it had a comprehensive review of the story in English. I put in a new reference work.
• duplicate source - merged
• Portuguese way - I couldn't quickly find a source in English. I replaced it with two other sources.
• Iria Flavia - I inserted <ref name="Legenda aurea"/> into that one sentence
• Google arts - the narrative in English has relevant text. I can resource that if needed.
• Gago - The specific tweet is from the academic and is relevant to the point. I have scoured his other posts to find something. I have emailed him separately.
• Tourism - I was going for things in English for accessibility. New book reference inserted
• Prado - Fixed
• Picking up the pieces is used for a quote on tourism. Is that okay?

• Not at GA level, sorry. It is still a self-published source. It even cites this very Wikipedia article, which means there might be some circular reporting going on. Better to replace it with a more clearly reliable source. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• The regional government has a walking guide for The Way. I'll use that instead. --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• etymology 2 - New academic citation.
• further information and sources. I intentionally tried to keep this the the core of her legacy. If you look at the works, you'll see a lot of duplication, puffery and hagiography. The English version is already more comprehensive than the other languages (es:Reina Lupa, eo:Reĝino Lupa and gl:Raíña Lupa)

• I'm not comparing it to the other Wikipedia articles, I'm considering it against GA criteria. From what I've seen, there's still a good amount more that could be added, and there really is no need for this article to be leaning on tourist websites and travel blogs when so many reliable sources on the legend of Lupa exist. For example, there are stories about her from pig farmers,[4] how she converted her palace into a church,[5] how a "half-human monster" guards her treasure,[6] the motif of scallop shells in one of her stories and how it relates to Celtic paganism,[7] how her story is one of the few in Medieval Spain that includes a dragon,[8] etc. Even in the sources you have already cited, there's more information provided. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Broadness - Her story is well-known throughout Galicia and she still influences the culture of that portion of Spain. Her story is integral to the translation of the relics of the apostle james, and her home is along the route of the Portuguese Way to Santiago de Compostela. (I like that so much, I'll think I'll use it.)
• Broadness - THere is a lot of stuff out there, but as you read it, it's repetitive of what's already here.

To do

• @Grnrchst: I just updated it again. I took most of your suggestions and have integrated them. Have I covered the literary and historiographical analysis of the character? I'm looking at what to say about impact and art. --evrik ^(talk) 00:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing much analysis per se, although the additions of other stories about Lupa are appreciated. I will say that the story about the pigs should be written in summary style, rather than a block quote. I'm also not sure what the two new paragraphs in "popular culture" section have to do with popular culture, as they both seem to be other contributions to the legend. Do double-check the other sources listed on Google Scholar, as there is still quite a bit there that's unused. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2024 (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.