Saint Dominic in Soriano was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
@ 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:
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.
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:
I have completed my editing until such time as you raise new issues. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.
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)
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)
Saint Dominic in Soriano was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
@ 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:
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.
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:
I have completed my editing until such time as you raise new issues. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.
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)
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)