Talk:Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

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)
• 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)
• 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)

A few suggested revisions

This is unbelievably detailed work, @Ficaia. Nicely done. I've just spent a while trying to acquaint myself with all your sources, and I'm floored at how much you had to wade through to get all of this. The main concrete suggestions I'd make are:

• More clarity on the specific relationship of this icon to the tradition of Luke's paintings. Right now the connection is mentioned in passing in the lead, and then show up only in one later sentence. I imagine that this will be one of the most interesting facets of the icon's history for many readers, so it might even be worth a dedicated section.
• More documentation about the history of the icon's movement, both in the Names section (which doesn't currently have any footnotes) and the History section (which footnotes only the move in 1575 and a couple of recent events).
  • In particular, are you finding the information about early history of the icon, before Dominic moved it? I'd love to read more about that, but I haven't seen it yet in the sources.
• I might actually suggest merging the names section with the lead, since that same history is repeated further below.

I mention this here for myself as much as for anyone else. As I have time, I'll pitch in on this article, too. I think I've got a few other sources in my library that might be helpful. Brian (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I translated this from the German Wikipedia article, and I've copied across all the sources used there. It's just a pity they didn't include more inline citations. I think a lot of the fine detail comes from the books by Belting and Spiazzi, but Google Translate doesn't work on Google Books preview so it's a bugger to try and work out what comes from where. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. I can only get my hands on the English translation of Belting, but it doesn't seem to have terribly much---mostly stuff about the procession, only indirectly about the icon itself. Spiazzi seems to have more, but working through the Google Preview is a pain, and my library doesn't have it.

One other question: do you get the sense that "Maria Advocata" is most commonly used as a proper name for this particular work, or as a generic name for this sort of image? Brian (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think "Maria Advocata" is just the Italian translation of Agiosoritissa. This is clearly a "type" of image with lots of copies (this one just being the most famous in Italy).

I also get the sense the "painted by St. Luke" thing was applied to a lot of icons.

The article probably needs re-naming as well. Maybe: Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario). Then redirect Maria Advocata to Agiosoritissa and leave a hatnote. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd support the redirect and rename. Brian (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now taken a first pass at all of these edits! I've also read through Belting and added a number of footnotes based on that book. Give it a check, if you get a chance, to make sure there's nothing you think I've messed up. Brian (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Great work improving the article. The actual topic is much clearer now. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

carbon dating?

Ever been done on the painting? What is the scholarly consensus on how old it actually is? 74.37.206.38 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This source says "Radiocarbon tests carried out in the 1960s then established that the icon dates to the first century AD." I don't know if that refers to the age of the painting or just the wood. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question and find. Ficaia, the face looks so well preserved, was it repainted at some point in the 1960 repair work or is it just a natural progression of the damage? Is there a link, photograph of, or an article on the 1960 repairs? Thanks again for your work on the page, and for the 'Did you know...' mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I could only find mentions of the 1960 restoration, as here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (not fluent in German though). The above information about first century wood dating is quite interesting and important to the page if credible, and further tests would add data. Seems obvious that the face and hand image have been repainted since the 1200s, or do pigments of that era hold up like this (the paint of the image, on close up, is well-cracked, so would that preclude any recent centuries, or even 1960, work?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave out the vague carbon dating claim (again, not sure if it refers to the age of the paint or just the wood backing).

I don't see any reference to re-painting in the sources, but I could just be missing it. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the visible worn patches slightly speak against repainting, which in the Middle Ages tended to be brutal and complete. The German article you link to has, near the bottom (and translated in the article), "1960 wurde die Tafel vom 12. Februar bis zum 28. Juni eingehend untersucht und restauriert. Der Untersuchungsbericht ist dürr. Ort: Rom. Maler: unbekannt. Maße: 70,2 x 40,5 cm. Dicke der Tafel: 0,5 cm. Holzart: vielleicht Linde, jedenfalls so zerfressen, dass eine Altersbestimmung nur schwer möglich ist. Eine Kupferplatte hält das Bild von hinten zusammen, Röntgenaufnahmen sind deshalb unmöglich. Sicher scheint nur, dass sie aus dem Osten kommt. Woher, weiß keiner." Basic catalogue physical details, but nothing at all as to date. Hans Belting's book called in English Likeness and Presence is the best recent starting place for all this stuff. I think he says something cautious like the painting being "commonly said" to be ?6th-century. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)