Template:Did you know nominations/Sant'Ambrogio della Massima

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 Allen3 ^talk 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sant'Ambrogio della Massima

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the nuns of Sant'Ambrogio della Massima participated in "sexual transgressions, heretical practices and homicidal schemes"?

ALT1:... that Sant'Ambrogio della Massima may have been named after a sewer?
ALT2:... that a founding abbess of the restored convent of Sant'Ambrogio della Massima was convicted of pretending to be a saint?
Reviewed: Burkina Faso coups

5x expanded by Nikkimaria (talk). Self nominated at 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Expanded, long enough, article well-cited, & QPQ check. The three hooks are sourced, but the proposed hook as well as most quotes in the article are not properly cited in the article. Furthermore, the quote in the proposed hook comes from the sources' authors, not a first-hand source (eg. a contemporary and/or someone involved with the convent). I don't know of the relevant WP policy, but it's generally in bad taste to use quotes in writing like that and quotes should usually include attribution in the prose (see Wikipedia:Quotations and MOS:QUOTE). The Salon article may be trying to sensationalize the subject. Furthermore, one of the DYK supplementary guidelines (D7) states: "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete...Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." This article doesn't really say anything about the church itself (there's history and etymology)...where exactly is it located (be more specific than Rome; could use an infobox)? What goes on there today? The end of the history section states that it was turned into a "a missionary college" in 1861. So is it a functioning church for the public? A religious college? Both?

Regarding the hooks...the proposed hook is not appropriate for the above reasoning. ALT2 is problematic because the convent previously existed from 353 until about 1800-10 (Napoleonic wars) and so it's not accurate to call her a founder without additional qualifiers, plus the source is offline, making it difficult to verify; ALT1 one is the best option. AHeneen (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello AHeneen. I have added more content to the article to address your concerns about completeness, though it is important to note that a DYK article is not expected to be comprehensive. I've added in-text attribution for the quote used in proposed hook; all quotes are appropriately cited. I have also added clarification to ALT2 that she was a founding abbess of the restored convent; the use of offline sources is not a problem, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Alt2. No the article doesn't need to be complete, but, as pointed out, it should be complete as far as no significant content omision (before your edit, there wasn't really anything about it today). Anyways, that's fixed. And offline sources are no problem, but I meant that it was difficult to verify the DYK hook. I've done a web search to verify the Alt2 hook and think it's the best of the three hooks. AHeneen (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)