Talk:Hexham Abbey high-altar cross

Initial comments

Full disclosure: I have close family links to Crosthwaite and Keswick and am predisposed to give a warm welcome to anything from the Keswick School of Industrial Art, but I trust I can apply the requisite objectivity here.

At the outset, let me say that I could in good conscience promote the article to GA as it stands – it seems to me to meet all the criteria. But I offer you some suggestions which you are completely at liberty to accept or reject as you think fit. There is nothing in the article that needs serious challenge, in my view, and so here are my minor comments and suggested tweaks:

• "recalls the Hawell Monument" – I'm pleased to see a red link here: can we look forward to your turning it blue in due course?

• I'm sure I could, although—since whenever I create a stub I eventually feel compelled to take it build it up for GA and FA—I try to be judicious in taking the first step. Any reason in particular you're interested in seeing Hawell Monument turn blue? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• No special reason: red links just make me itch. An allergic reaction, no doubt. I don't press the point one bit. Tim riley talk 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• "The Keswick School of Industrial Art was founded in 1884 by Hardwicke Rawnsley" – I think it would be no bad thing to refer to him at this first mention as "the Rev Hardwicke Rawnsley".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Maryon executed several significant commissions" – Plain Words has this sage advice about the word "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'

• You made this point in a 2021 review, which has stuck with me—particularly as to using the question of "what does it signify" as a barometer for whether the word "significant" is contextually correct. This was an unfortunate slip, and I've changed it to "important". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "a number of craftsmen, numbering around a dozen by 1904" – infelicitous repetition: you could lose "a number of" without damaging the sense.

• Good point. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "made by Lilian Hawthorn, then an art student" – I think I'd add "who was" before "then", for absolute clarity that it wasn't Hawthorn and then an art student".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "the seven represent the seven churches of Hexham, and possibly also the seven canonised Bishops of Hexham" – if I may suggest it, a footnote trotting out the names of the seven sainted bishops of Hexham would be nice.

• I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but the linked article—Bishop of Hexham—clearly identifies them. What do you see as the added value of naming them in this article? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Saves readers clicking away from your article to another one, but it's fine as it is. Tim riley talk 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• "According to The English Lakes Visitor and The Newcastle Daily Journal, the cross 'is what may be called a Latinesed Maltese'" – should be "Latinised" (I've checked with the source).

• Whoops, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "while The enamelled boss" – the capitalised definite article looks a bit odd here.

• Ditto. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Each stand 64 cm (25 in) high" – should be "each stands" [singular], surely?

• Whoops again. Fixed again. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• "He had been married the prior year" – this is the second "prior" in the text and it looks a little odd to me: one might expect the more common "previous".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold unless you wish me to. – Tim riley talk 19:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Tim riley. As always, I appreciate your insightful comments. I hadn't realized you had family connections to Keswick. A visit there, to take a look at the school's archives, is on my list of "to dos"; they must be able to shed much more light on the school's works. (Ian Bruce's excellent history is at least a start in the meantime.) As to this piece, we'll hopefully have some more photos to add in the near future (the Abbey has been very helpful over email), at which point I'd like to take it up to FA. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Between the years 1973 and 2016 I used to walk right past the back of the premises of the School of Industrial Art on the way into town from my parents' house in Portinscale. They are buried in Crosthwaite parish churchyard. Yes, strong ties. Tim riley talk 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

GA

Promoting to GA forthwith. I hope you will take the article to FAC, and if you do, pray ping me. Tim riley talk 08:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tim riley. It's interesting to hear of your ties to the area. So you were there when the school was still in operation! --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I was, and greatly liked its displays. Alas the building has not prospered since the school closed. It was first an over-ambitious Italian restaurant (albeit with a good cellar) which closed after it was flooded in 2015; it was succeeded by a rather good café, but that too has now closed and the site is, I gather, up for sale. Tim riley talk 18:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)