Talk:Saint Dominic in Soriano

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Dominic in Soriano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (9.1% is highest) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations N:
  1. The feast was suppressed in 1913, when Pope Pius X moved what had until then been the movable feast of Our Lady of Sorrows to the fixed date of 15 September.
  2. The more recent history of the portrait is unknown. Soriano Friary was badly damaged by an earthquake in 1659 (it). It was rebuilt; but was destroyed by another earthquake in 1783 (it was 3 km from the epicentre of a 6.6 magnitude shock). The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but never regained its earlier reputation. The portrait may have failed to survive one of those events.
  3. The miraculous origin of the portrait was a significant topic for religious art in 17th-century Italy and Spain. It is uncertain which, if any, of the painters had seen the original. They are consistent in showing Dominic slightly less than life-size, full length, wearing his habit, with book and lily; but differ in detail.

• @Narky Blert: I will be placing the review on hold until the missing citations are dealt with. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: and quite right too. TY for your work so far. I have tried to address some of your concerns, but am not yet satisfied that I have addressed them all. Not least because, despite the multilingual searching I did when writing the article, I have just found yet another citation – 128 pages in Italian, dated 1634, which I will need to at least speed-read. I will post here again addressing your points in detail when I am satisfied. Until then, you need do nothing. Narky Blert (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: The new citation has proved to be very important indeed. I am incorporating relevant information from it into the article. However, that means that the article is no longer stable, and as a result is IMO unsuitable for WP:GA review. I accordingly withdraw my GA nomination for the time being.

Thank you again for your input. You have helped in making what I thought was a good article, better. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that changing the article in a positive way does not effect stability, stability only has to do with edit warring, thus you don’t have to withdraw it, unless you feel it is necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: In that case, I withdraw my withdrawal. I may not be able to meet the usual 7 day target for addressing issues raised in WP:GA; but am working on the ones you raised, and will post here again when I am satisfied that I have addressed them. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Two days late. Hagiographic C17 Italian can be heavy going. I've tried to address the issues which you raised, and the ones which that 1634 citation raised. I have added several new bluelinks and citations. I hope that they are all mentioned in the following text, to simplify checking.

Your issues:

1. Citation added; it's printed, and I haven't been able to check it; but I lifted it from Our Lady of Sorrows, and it looks sound. Statement weakened to possibility.
2. Para beginning "The more recent history..." rewritten, with five new citations.
3. Statement weakened to a see-for-yourself one referring to the paintings mentioned later in the section. I've also added the 1634 citation to this para.

I have unhidden three lines which an editor had hidden as lacking citations. You may wish to check the links, and the one new citation.

1. 1640 – Matteo Rosselli (Italy) – Church of San Marco, Florence.
   1. I cannot find a citation supporting this, but am ready to accept the unambiguous statement by the photographer who uploaded the image to WikiCommons.
2. Mid 17th century – Jacopo Vignali (Italy) – Convent of San Marco, Florence.
   1. Ditto. I've added a citation anyway.
3. Chiesa di San Domenico Soriano, a church in Naples (founded 1673).
   1. There's a clue in the name. Dedications of religious buildings are sometimes ambiguous, and can be difficult to resolve. This one is not.

I have totally rewritten Saint Dominic in Soriano#History and have added the new section Saint Dominic in Soriano#A description of the painting based on the 1634 source. In consequence:

1. The 1510 date for foundation of the friary now has support.
2. I have deleted two citations: Web Gallery of Art and Piccoli Grandi Musei. I was always unhappy about them, but they are modern, and I felt that as such I ought to give them some weight. Now that they have been refuted by an early authoritative source, I felt comfortable in deleting them as uninformed.
3. I have deleted two footnotes: about the crown of martyrdom, and about the novelty of the depiction. They were only there to hint at my dissatisfaction with those two now-deleted sources; they had become unnecessary. That also disposes of a {{citation needed}} tag.

I have completed my editing until such time as you raise new issues. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I had also deleted the footnote about the "essence of the miracle". It was only there because a source said that the paining had been presented rolled up. The 1634 source does not say that, and the footnote had become unnecessary. Narky Blert (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

• In 1530, during the night before the octave of the Nativity of the Madonna (8 September, so making this day 15 September) suggest On 15 September 1530, the night before the octave of the Nativity of the Madonna, which occured on 8 September,
• the sacristan of Soriano had risen according to his custom at 3 o'clock in the morning to light the church lamps. Three ladies of wonderful appearance, the first of whom seemed much afflicted by grief, finding the door unlocked, entered. Their leader, her grief turning into joy, asked what church might this be? He replied, this church is dedicated to Saint Dominic. We have no paintings on the walls, except for that crude depiction of him behind the altar. The venerable matron said, so that your church may have another picture, take this, and give it to your superior, and tell him to place it above the altar. He accepted the gift with great reverence, and did so. When the superior and two other brothers came to the church, the ladies were nowhere to be seen. One of those three said, while I knelt in prayer, Saint Catherine the Virgin appeared to me and said, I, together with the Virgin Mother of God and the Magdalene, have conferred this favour upon you. is this a direct quote? if so I recommend using Template:Quote.
• @Narky Blert: That is all my comments, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: good points. I have reformatted what was a mixture of summary and translation into a {{quote}} translation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Miraculous

I haven't read the sources (sorry) but the repeated assertions, in Wikipedia's voice, that Catholics widely believed that an inanimate object worked miracles of its own accord, beggars belief. Christians simply don't believe it works that way. Yes, an object may exhibit miraculous behavior or activity surrounding it, but supernatural intervention comes from God, not any creature. If anything, the faithful might've pointed to St. Dominic's intercession through his image. But the idea of a painting moving itself around by its own power is the stuff of Poltergeist. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Saint Dominic in Soriano

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Article no longer meets the Good criteria AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It is evident to me that this article does not meet the good article criteria because very considerable amounts of it are unsourced. There are two "citation needed" tags, but there are many other things in the article which do not have citations. Here is one peculiar sentence: "The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but seems never to have regained its earlier reputation; it seems to disappear from the records." If the friary seemed to disappear from the records, how do we know that it was rebuilt? The whole sentence is, by the way, unsourced. There is a section entitled "Notes," which lists five separate items. None of these are sourced. The notes are also so clearly tainted with WP:Editorializing that they would need revision even if there were citations.

I am choosing community reassessment because I previously failed a good article nomination made by the same editor who nominated this article and do not want to be accused of not having enough objectivity to make the final decision myself. But I do think that it quite clearly fails part 2 of the GA criteria, which mandates that the articles be verifiable. Looking at the version that was reviewed, the article seems to have been in even worse shape then, so I'm not sure how it managed to get passed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, a claim in the "History section" about a particular narrative concerning the origins of the painting being "largely the one accepted by the Dominican Order today" is not supported by the source. Display name 99 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've read the article and am concerned about multiple unsourced assertions and assertions that may appear to be OR; I've tagged them. IMO this article no longer qualifies as GA. --valereee (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Display name 99 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)