Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Church of St John of the Collachium was said to contain the hand of John the Baptist, a bowl used by Jesus, and a piece of the True Cross?

• Source: Zoitou, Sofia (2021). Staging Holiness: The Case of Hospitaller Rhodes (ca. 1309–1522). Mediterranean Art Histories. Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill. pp. 36–66. ISBN 9789004444225. Retrieved 2024-08-17.

• ALT1: ... that the Church of St John of the Collachium was converted into a mosque, then struck by lightning and destroyed? Source: Kasdagli, Anna-Maria (2016). Stone Carving of the Hospitaller Period in Rhodes: Displaced Pieces and Fragments. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 123. ISBN 9781784914790.; * Papanikolaou, Prodromos (2017). Tο καθολικό του Αγίου Ιωάννη στο Koλλάκιο εκ νέου. Spolia, ιστορικές πληροφορίες και ερμηνευτικά ζητήματα [The Church of St John in the Collachium Anew: Spolia, Historical Information and Interpretative Issues]. In Triantafyllidis, Paulos (ed.). Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στα νησιά του Αιγαίου. Διεθνές επιστημονικό συνέδριο, Ρόδος, 27 Νοεμβρίου–1 Δεκεμβρίου 2013 [Archaeological Work in the Aegean islands. International Scientific Conference, Rhodes, 27 November –1 December, 2013] (in Greek). Vol. 3. Mytilene: Ministry of Culture and Sport. p. 501. ISBN 9789603863199. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Academia.edu.
• ALT2: ... that at least six grand masters of the Knights Hospitaller were buried in the Church of St John of the Collachium? Source: Zoitou, Sofia (2021). Staging Holiness: The Case of Hospitaller Rhodes (ca. 1309–1522). Mediterranean Art Histories. Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill. pp. 23–24. ISBN 9789004444225. Retrieved 2024-08-17.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian Campaign of 1796-1797 Template:Did you know nominations/Tropical Storm Kai-tak

Created by UndercoverClassicist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC).

• I like the initial hook! Source checks out, and article appears eligible, high quality, and free of copyvio. QPQ is good. Good to go. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll give this a review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• John the Baptist, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and various other saints I don't love the wording here, given it appears to be referring to the three as saints (with obvious issues), or referring just to Mary, despite John also being considered a saint.
  • Your point is good, but I'm struggling to come up with a better way to do it. I'll keep chewing on it for now -- otherwise, suggestions very welcome. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have joined you in chewing, I'll see if anything comes to mind when I next look at the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• After 1522 (converted to a mosque) This is very confusing regarding the buildings subject, which appears to be the building. It was not "closed" in 1522, it just became used for a different purpose. If the article is about the building as it functioned as a church, then discussion of its destruction and use as a mosque should be less integrated with the subject and should be split into a legacy section or the sort.
  • On reflection, this parameter doesn't work well, for all the reasons you outline. It would be nice to have a "deconsecrated" or similar, but I don't think there is one, so in the meantime I've just removed it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• link coffered, and probably move it to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE
  • Don't see a good way to move it away from the noun it modifies, and I don't think it's a particularly essential link by comparison with barrel vault. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, ideally you would find another adjective to separate them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• at least six are believed why is this hedged? If it is believed by historians, just "at least six". If it's hedged due to probabilities, refer to this, i.e. "at least six are likely"
  • It's believed tentatively -- I think it's important to be clear that historians believe it on balance of probabilities, rather than having a set of historians who wholeheartedly endorse a figure of (e.g.) 7, 8, 9 or so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• link belfry
  • It's the same article as bell tower, which is linked further up. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• and wrote a description of the building: he commented that make this more concise
  • Any suggestions? These are two different things -- he wrote a (long) description of the building, and made the following selected comments as part of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

in a description of the building, commented that ? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Loses words but actually places more demand on the reader in terms of working memory/following the thread, so I'm not sure that's actually an improvement -- although, admittedly, I'm not sure I've seen that there's a real problem needing to be fixed here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• believed to have been made from the bowl used by Jesus to wash the feet of his disciples... Other relics included a bowl used by Jesus these are different relics?
  • They are -- the second one is an intact bowl, the first is just a piece of one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• and one of the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus seems in bad taste to have this as a relic haha
  • You'd be surprised -- there were a lot of these in circulation (considerably more than thirty), and they were popular relics at the time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• redlink Charles Alleman de Rochechinard if he's notable, else you don't have to include the name of who donated it.
  • I've redlinked him, though I'm not sure I agree that we should only mention people in an article who pass GNG. He certainly does, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• used for the lavabo (ceremonial washing of the priest's hands) I am shamefully ignorant of this, but according to the wiki page, lavabo seems to refer more to the device than the act?
  • It's both -- from that article: In ecclesiastical usage it refers to all of: the basin in which the priest washes their hands; the ritual that surrounds this action in the Catholic Mass; and the architectural feature or fitting where a basin or place for one is recessed into the side wall of the sanctuary, or projects from it
• : over The double use of colons in this sentence should be replaced with breaking it up into a new sentence.#
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• struck gunpowder that had been stored Wordy sentence
  • Done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time with the review -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

All looking good, some responses. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• [7] clock the source concludes that because it was present in the chapter general, it had "already been regulated." This may mean in practice, but could also mean these instructions had already been "laid down".
• [14] Y Consider adding a JSTOR ID and/or DOI
• [21] Y
• [28] Y although I am unsure why page 31 is cited
• [35] Y
• [42] Y
• [49] Y
• [57] clock Chapter doesn't mention 1945. Consider adding DOI.

Other

• Neutral Y
• Broad / summary style clock see discussion of "After 1522 (converted to a mosque)"
• No COPYVIO / OR Y earwig down :/
• Stable Y
• Illustrated appropriately tagged? Y

Suggestions

• and presided over and was presided over sounds more natural, even though it's repeating was
  • It does, but creates a grammatical problem, as the preceding clause ("immediately adjacent to...") is also governed by the same initial was. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redlink Pietro Lojacono in the lead as well, and also redlink Anna-Maria Kasdagli if it's notable that she was the archeologist. If it's not notable, then you can elide her name in the same way as the 1988 investigation.
  • My preference is to minimise redlinks in the lead and infobox -- as it's shorter, they draw the eye and distract more than they do in the body, and as it's geared more towards casual visitors and novices than to experts, they have less value as prompts to create a new article on that topic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I'm happy with the modifications, and don't think anything outstanding is a dealbreaker to the article being well written and passing the other criteria. Passing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.