 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 SL93 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
( )
The Madonna Advocata
- ... that the Maria Advocata is one of the oldest icons of Mary, mother of Jesus, and that according to legend it was painted by Luke the Evangelist? Source: Mentioned in the lead
- Reviewed:
- Comment: This is my first nomination, so no doubt I've done something wrong here...
Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC).
This article is currently flagged for lacking inline citations (and reasonably so), which disqualifies it for DYK. It's not enough that the fact you use for the hook be provided in the lead of the article; it also needs to be cited in the original article. Brian (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bdhamilton, nominations for DYK are not failed immediately when they do not meet the criteria; the {{DYK?}}
and {{DYK?no}} 
can give time to nominators (especially new nominators) to fix issues that may arise before they are approved. Ficaia, welcome to DYK :) I've made a couple copyedits to your hook, in line with DYK's style. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron and @Ficaia: Apologies for being curt and inhospitable! I was moving too quickly. I did (and still do) think that the article needs too much work in terms of citations to be a good candidate for DYK. It's not only that the main hook is not sourced in the article; the entire article is undercited as it stands. I think you've done some excellent work building out the substance of the article, but I personally don't think it's ready for this forum right now. If another editor thinks I'm overstating how much work needs to be done, I'm happy to be overruled. Brian (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Bdhamilton I've provided inline citations in the lead for the two points of the hook, and I'll work on adding footnotes throughout the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia Great! If I can find some time today, I’ll try to dig into these edits with you. I’ve still got some questions about the claim of the hook: you say here the icon is supposed to have been painted by Luke, but the article just says it’s associated with Luke, and my preliminary scan of the sources reveal conflicting things. But I’ll start a conversation on the talk page about this. Brian (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Bdhamilton I've provided inline citations in the lead for the two points of the hook, and I'll work on adding footnotes throughout the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron and @Ficaia: Apologies for being curt and inhospitable! I was moving too quickly. I did (and still do) think that the article needs too much work in terms of citations to be a good candidate for DYK. It's not only that the main hook is not sourced in the article; the entire article is undercited as it stands. I think you've done some excellent work building out the substance of the article, but I personally don't think it's ready for this forum right now. If another editor thinks I'm overstating how much work needs to be done, I'm happy to be overruled. Brian (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bdhamilton, nominations for DYK are not failed immediately when they do not meet the criteria; the {{DYK?}}
A full review will be needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment: @Theleekycauldron, Ficaia, and Bdhamilton: has the article been moved to Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)? If so, can we fix the title of this DYK nom? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Red-tailed hawk! Updated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for revision! Ficaia and I did a ton of work on this over the weekend, so the citation issues I flagged before should be resolved. Brian (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: There are still many unsourced claims and at least one entirely unsourced paragraph (this is not allowed for DYK). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I added a couple of citations to the one paragraph that lacked them. —Brian (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: There are still many unsourced claims and at least one entirely unsourced paragraph (this is not allowed for DYK). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Full review still needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: There are still a large amount of uncited text that makes this ineligible for DYK so far. I've labeled some of them with citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: I've removed all the uncited text you tagged. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess i can approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: I've removed all the uncited text you tagged. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: There are still a large amount of uncited text that makes this ineligible for DYK so far. I've labeled some of them with citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
