Template:Did you know nominations/History of Roman and Byzantine domes


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

History of Roman and Byzantine domes

 * ... that the widest of the Roman and Byzantine domes was that of the Pantheon, but the pendentives of Hagia Sophia (pictured) form part of a theoretical hemisphere seven percent wider?



Improved to Good Article status by AmateurEditor (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC).


 * I suggest you specify the refs for the hook. Reviewers should'nt be expected to work this out for an article this long. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference for the Pantheon having the widest dome is reference number 46 (Mark and Hutchinson, page 34), and the reference for the pendentives of Hagia Sophia being 7% greater is reference number 90 91  95 97 (Mark and Billington, page 308). Sorry for any inconvenience, this is the first DYK nomination that I have tried and I'm not familiar with the process. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I changed reference 90 in my above comment to 91 because an additional reference added after May 29 shifted it. The page number and external link were still accurate, of course. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated again. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This newly promoted GA passes the newness and length requirements for DYK. I was able to verify the hook sources as I have access to JSTOR. The image is appropriately licensed and the article is neutral, but checking for close paraphrasing was beyond my capabilities and enthusiasm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping up. I guess access to JSTOR is not as common among Wikipedia editors as I thought. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this one from prep as the larger dome appears to be a hypothetical rather than actual dome according to the article, so a new hook is required. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (alt) that the widest of the Roman and Byzantine domes was that of the Pantheon, but the pendentives of Hagia Sophia (pictured) form part of a theoretical hemisphere seven percent wider?
 * I added the "theoretical" word (as that's how I read the meaning) Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, the hook appears to refer to the original dome and pendetives, neither of whose dimensions are known. It just a theory that the pendetives for the original dome were "7 percent wider" than the Pantheon - nobody actually knows. The hook, on the other hand, states that the current dome has pendetives 7 percent wider. That why the hook needs work, because it conflating the current dome  with a theoretical version of the original dome - either that, or the relevant part of the article needs to be clarified to confirm the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the alternate hook, as well. My original above refers to the dimensions of the present pendentives of Hagia Sophia, rather than to the original dome, which may or may not have continued the curve of those pendentives. You are right that the pendentives and the no-longer-existing original shallower dome above them are theorized (among other theories) to have been continuous and so both part of an imaginary hemisphere 7 percent wider than the span of the Pantheon's dome, but I deliberately did not refer to the dome of the Hagia Sophia at all (referring instead just to the pendentives) in order to keep everything fact-based, rather than theoretical. That is, the 46 meter span from the base of one of the pendentives to the base of the one opposite is not a theoretical distance. I have never read even a suggestion that the location of the bases of the pendentives has moved to be different than their original locations, which would have to have involved altering the entire building. Having said that, the hemisphere that they form a part of is certainly a theoretical hemisphere, in that a full half-sphere does not actually exist there and never did. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The hook states the pendentives of Hagia Sophia form part of a hemisphere seven percent wider. But nowhere in the article does that claim appear. The article only says: One theory is that the original dome continued the curve of the pendentives, creating a massive sail vault pierced with a ring of windows.[93] The diameter of this hemisphere, 46 meters (151 ft) from the base of one pendentive to the base of the one opposite, would have been 7 percent greater than that of the Pantheon. It says the diameter of the pendetives of the original dome ... would have been greater than the Pantheon. It says nothing about the pendetives of the current dome. If you are sure the existing pendetives are the original pendetives, and you have a source for that, then you can probably clarify that sufficiently simply by adding the word "existing" so that the operative phrase reads One theory is that the original dome continued the curve of the existing pendentives. Then the article will concur with the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found another source by Mark on the same point but with more clear language. Instead of referring to the original dome and "its" pendentives, it refers to the pendentives in the present tense and reveals that the span of 46 meters comes from the distance between the piers. I have also rephrased the article to hopefully clarify things. The only source I could find so far on whether the pendentives are original or not was the mention in Krautheimer, page 206 that they were "partially reconstructed" after the collapse of the first dome in 558 (although when Krautheimer mentions the theory of the original dome being a sail vault, he says it may have continued the curve of "the pendentives", rather than "its pendentives" or "the original pendentives", for what its worth). AmateurEditor (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With the addition of the new source, I accept that the sources are almost certainly referring to the existing pendetives rather than "original" pendetives that no source has mentioned. I'd still like to see the word "existing" in there for clarity, but I'm not going to hold this one up any longer, so I will put it up for re-review. Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added to the article the word "existing" for clarity as well as mentioning that the pendentives were partially reconstructed after the collapse of the first dome, citing Krautheimer. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I have checked the last source but this approval is based on the narrative and conclusions above with a lot of contributions. I have therefore ticked this as AGF. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)