Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Dominic in Soriano
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Saint Dominic in Soriano edit
... that Saint Dominic in Soriano was a 1530 painting which was believed to be of miraculous origin and to be capable of working miracles, and which had a Roman Catholic feast day dedicated to it?
Improved to Good Article status by Narky Blert (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC).
- will review later today, can say already that the hook looks too complicated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting GA about a lost image with an unusual story, on good sources, offline source accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - I wonder about "marvellous" vs. "miraculous", but am not good enough in English to know if it means the same. Where to put Visione di Soriano? I suggest to distinguish reproductions of the original portrait from paintings about the miraculous "donation". In the hook, I think "believed to be capable" is saying too little for a four-digit number of miracles. I suggest you focus on one of the three aspects you combine in the hook, and the "giving" by three female saints, painted several times, seems the most unusual to me, could also be pictured while the lost original cannot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a very interesting article and I was drawn to give it a look by this entry. It has several facts that could be hooks. I agree with Gerda that the proposed hook is too complicated since it offers three facts, one of which does not appear to be related to the other two. I would keep the first two aspects, because they are both related to miracles and add to the interest without adding too much to the length. I would delete "and which had a Roman Catholic feast day dedicated to it." The feast day has disappeared and the main facts of interest are the miraculous origin and the miracles later attributed to the painting. The addition about the feast day just complicates it. If only one aspect were to be included, I agree with Gerda's suggestion. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by nom. Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. It does indeed make sense to focus the hook onto the painting and its properties, and not to mention its clerical and artistic recognition in the hook. How about:
- "
... that Saint Dominic in Soriano was a 1530 painting believed to be of miraculous origin, and that the Roman Catholic church accepted the validity of some 1,600 miracles attributed to it?"
- "
- I am uncertain as to whether or not the painting's apparent loss should be mentioned in the hook. My feeling is: probably not. Nothing seems to be known for sure.
- As of now, I feel that the presentation by the three Ladies should not be mentioned in the hook. That is part of the story in the article, and might be distracting in a hook. Opinions welcome, of course.
- There is rarely any hurry in Wiki (except to delete things which it shouldn't contain at all). Should this DYK nomination be accepted, I propose that it be held until 15 September, the key date associated with the painting.
- @Gerda Arendt: that Italian article is a superb find! You have opened up several new lines of research! I am working on possible additions to the "Artistic representations" and "Ecclesiastical buildings" sections, provided I can find some WP:RS to back up what it says. I doubt whether there will be any major changes elsewhere in the article (although I have found one source which calls those three saints the protectresses of the Dominican Order – that looks like a possibly significant fact, which needs WP:RS for confirmation).
- To me, "miracle" has a narrower meaning than "marvel" when both words are used technically and not as exaggerations. Both correspond to German: Wunder. A miracle is the result of divine intervention. Marvel can be a synonym for miracle, but is also the human response both to miracles and to outstanding human creations.
- I feel confident that you'll recognise this quote: Ein Wunder! Ein Wunder! Ein Wunder ist gekommen, ein unerhörtes, nie gesehnes Wunder! Narky Blert (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Ich komme singend dann mit meinem Haschawaaan daher. - Looodengrün" - Back to the miracles. How is this?
- ALT2: "... that Saint Dominic in Soriano was a 1530 painting believed to be of miraculous origin, and that some 1,600 miracles were attributed to it?"
- We have readers around the globe, and many may believe in miracles but perhaps less so in the "certification" of them (and of saints) by any human organization. Catholic Church, btw, no Roman, and upper case. - Date: if you want 15 September, close this, nominate the article for GA, and ask someone to approve it in August. This nom, once approved, may not sit for longer than 6 weeks. Happy improving, let me know when I should look again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
ALT 3: "... that Saint Dominic in Soriano was a 1530 painting at Soriano Calabro, Italy believed to be of miraculous origin, and that some 1,600 miracles were attributed to it?"(Best to add location while maintaining NPOV?) Narky Blert (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)- ALT 4: "... that Saint Dominic in Soriano was a 1530 painting at Soriano Calabro, Italy, which was believed to be of miraculous origin, and that some 1,600 miracles were attributed to it?" (Correcting my grammar) Narky Blert (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure the location really matters, - Soriano is duplicated, and IF location I would link to it. "at" or "in"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- no reply? I appr ALT4 and its subset ALT2 and leave it to the prep builder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by nom. Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. It does indeed make sense to focus the hook onto the painting and its properties, and not to mention its clerical and artistic recognition in the hook. How about:
- Comment. This is a very interesting article and I was drawn to give it a look by this entry. It has several facts that could be hooks. I agree with Gerda that the proposed hook is too complicated since it offers three facts, one of which does not appear to be related to the other two. I would keep the first two aspects, because they are both related to miracles and add to the interest without adding too much to the length. I would delete "and which had a Roman Catholic feast day dedicated to it." The feast day has disappeared and the main facts of interest are the miraculous origin and the miracles later attributed to the painting. The addition about the feast day just complicates it. If only one aspect were to be included, I agree with Gerda's suggestion. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
