# Template:Did you know nominations/Barad, Syria

The following discussion 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 09:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Al Ameer son (talk), Zozo2kx (talk). Nominated by Al Ameer son (talk) at 06:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Two problems. I write about architecture all the time, but the statement "precision of its dimensions" was anything but clear! I wondered what it meant. If a building is enormous, (the Great Pyramids for example) then precise dimensions are significant. I also wondered what you meant, in the article by the "backyard". So I tracked down the relevant source and discovered that the author you have referenced used the word "courtyard". "Courtyard" and "backyard" are not interchangeable. The "backyard" is a place where you keep the clothesline, the dog and compost heap. So, like the "backyard/courtyard" thing, you had transcribed the author's words from "proportions" to "dimensions". The author had stated that the building was notable for its fine proportions rather than for decoration. (i.e. carved stonework) The difference is that "dimensions" refers to size. Precise dimensions would mean that the building measured exactly the same on both sides (for example). "Proportions" are another thing entirely. Proportion in architecture isn't so much about how things measure as how they look. It is about whetehr the door looks the right height for its width, and whether the windows look the right height for the door and whether they are nicely positioned in the walls. You can't use the word "dimensions" when it is "proportions" that are being written about. So, until this is sorted out, I can't support it. I would look for a different hook entirely, because if you, as the author of the article, don't fully grasp the meaning, then neither will the readers. Amandajm (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of the hook is fine, but it should be tweaked for accuracy. I also think the intention of those word replacements was to avoid any hints of plagiarism, although as you imply, some words are just not replaceable. I'm not an architecture wiz and I don't think Zozo is either, but we've edited plenty of architecture articles, most of them on religious buildings. I'll make the necessary edits to the hook and the article and update you on the progress. Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it's a poor hook, because you have misinterpreted what your source said. The source said "The attractiveness of the church lies in the precision of its proportions rather than in any elaborate treatment of the squared ashlar blocks of which it is composed.
The author doesn't say that the church is "distinguished by" its proportions. He comments that this is the feature of the church that makes it attractive. To say that it is "distinguished by" its proportions lifts that factor to a different level entirely.
My advice is, scrap that hook because it relies upon you misinterpreting the text.
That bit of the text does give you valuable information. What is says is: According to Robert Milburn, the attractiveness of the church lies in the precision of its proportions."
Alternately: "The church is built of ashlar masonry, and has little decoration, but fine proportions."
You could use as a hook the fact that it has an extraordinary number of doors. That is sufficient.
Amandajm (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Church of Julianos in the village of Barad in northern Syria, was one of two churches in the Dead Cities to have a three-aisle basilica to accommodate large congregations? Yazan (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Better, but it the church did not have a three-aisled basilica. The church was (or is) a three-aisled basilica. You could say that the village of Barad had a three-aisled basilica.
Can I suggest that you go to the page Basilica and check the meanings. The way in which this word is being used is the "architectural" sense, not the sense of papal ordination.
Amandajm (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, how about, ALT2: ... that the Church of Julianos (pictured) in the village of Barad in northern Syria, was one of two three-aisled basilicas in the Dead Cities? Yazan (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Next round

Comment

• Of the seven churches that were built in northern Syria before 400 CE, the Church of Julianos was one of two to have a three-aisle—a nave and two side aisles divided by rows of eight columns—basilica to accommodate large congregations.[8]
This is an appallingly clumsy sentence.
The hyphenated word "three-aisle" should be the adjectival form "three-aisled". The word "basilica" ought to follow immediately.
You simply can't write a sentence that goes : ... the Church of Julianos was one of two to have a three-aisle—waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle—basilica to accommodate large congregations.[8]
The adjective "three-aisled" and the noun "basilica" must go together.