Template:Did you know nominations/Sacred Heart of Jesus (Batoni)
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BuySomeApples (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sacred Heart of Jesus (Batoni)
Sacred Heart of Jesus by Pompeo Batoni
- ... that Pompeo Batoni's Sacred Heart of Jesus (pictured) is popular for the official image for the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus? Source: "This work became the official image for the popular devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus." Missionaries of Divine Revelation
- Reviewed: Gerold of Lausanne
Created by JeBonSer (talk). Self-nominated at 10:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC).
New enough and long enough. QPQ done. But there's a problem with the sourcing, both in the article and in the hook. The source says it's the "official image for popular devotion": that is, the church has recognized that this image is the one that should be used by lay people when they are performing acts of devotion to the sacred heart. "Popular devotion" means devotion by the people rather than by the church hierarchy. Ignoring your bad grammar (although that should be fixed too) your hook says instead that it's "popular [as / for being] the official image for devotion", meaning something else entirely, that it is the official image for all devotion, and is widely liked because it is official. "Popular for ..." or "popular as ..." means that something is widely liked, for the reason described next. Because they mean such different things, both the line in the article saying this and the hook are not verified by what their source says. Additionally, Earwig found a lot of similar phrasing between this new article and https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-most-famous-image-of-the-sacred-heart/, enough to make me think that it is close paraphrasing rather than coincidental similarity of wording. Additionally, one of the paragraphs of the article is sourced only to a commercial web site that offers copies of this image for sale, not acceptable as a reliable source. For that matter I'm also not convinced that mdrevelation.org is a reliable source on art history: what makes it reliable for this topic? Removing those two dubious sources would leave only one line of the article properly sourced, and that line isn't even about the same painting. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
