Talk:Origins of the Hermit Brothers of the Order of Saint Augustine and Their True Establishment Before the Great Lateran Council
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination
This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Origins of the Hermit Friars of the Order of Saint Augustine and Their True Establishment Before the Great Lateran Council Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Origins of the Hermit Friars of the Order of Saint Augustine and Their True Establishment Before the Great Lateran Council |
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 19 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 Yoninah (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ...
that a 1618 work by Augustinian scholar Juan Márquez contributed to the debate as to whether the friars or the canons were the older establishment?- ALT1:...
that a 1618 work by Augustinian scholar Juan Márquez argued that the friars existed before the canons?
- ALT1:...
- Reviewed: Paul Callaghan (Gaelic footballer)
5x expanded by Mccapra (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 01:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
- Comment: The article title was fixed and I fixed the DYK nomination info to reflect the rename. SL93 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT2: that a 1618 work by Augustinian scholar Juan Márquez used unreliable sources to claim that Saint Francis of Assisi (depicted) was a hermit?SL93 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I crossed out the first two hooks because I don't like them anymore. SL93 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Article was expanded greatly within the required timeframe and is exemplary, carefully referenced work in a suitably neutral and informative style. The sources look good- assuming good faith on foreign language sources. Image is in the public domain, used in the article, and looks good at thumbnail resolution. QPQ done. Hook is interesting, short enough but I have a query about sourcing. That the Origen made the claim about Francis is stated in the article with an inline citation, but the "unreliable sources" claim seems to depend on a statement later in the article, sourced to ref 4. My reading of ref 4 page 29 is that the sources being discussed would have been regarded as unreliable in the early 18th century; it leaves open whether they are now considered unreliable and hence whether Wikipedia should describe them as unreliable. Am I reading that right? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's what I get for threading a hook together while multi-tasking. You're right. I am going to propose -
- MartinPoulter
ALT3 ... that a 1618 work by Augustinian scholar Juan Márquez used potentially unreliable sources to claim that Saint Francis of Assisi (depicted) was a hermit?Although, maybe the sources bit could be dropped entirely so to make it ALT4 ... that a 1618 work by Augustinian scholar Juan Márquez claimed that Saint Francis of Assisi (depicted) was a hermit? SL93 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- SL93 ALT4 is fine by me. Good to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- MartinPoulter
- That's what I get for threading a hook together while multi-tasking. You're right. I am going to propose -
- Article was expanded greatly within the required timeframe and is exemplary, carefully referenced work in a suitably neutral and informative style. The sources look good- assuming good faith on foreign language sources. Image is in the public domain, used in the article, and looks good at thumbnail resolution. QPQ done. Hook is interesting, short enough but I have a query about sourcing. That the Origen made the claim about Francis is stated in the article with an inline citation, but the "unreliable sources" claim seems to depend on a statement later in the article, sourced to ref 4. My reading of ref 4 page 29 is that the sources being discussed would have been regarded as unreliable in the early 18th century; it leaves open whether they are now considered unreliable and hence whether Wikipedia should describe them as unreliable. Am I reading that right? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)