Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Roman and Byzantine domes/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 [1].

---

History of Roman and Byzantine domes

Nominator(s): AmateurEditor (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive history of one of the most distinctive aspects of Roman architecture. Roman/Byzantine domes were built throughout a millennium and a half of very dynamic history and gradually developed in form, materials, and use over that period. No other ancient architecture is as well studied, although lots of questions remain and I have tried to respect any ambiguities that are found in the sources. The Pantheon is perhaps the most famous dome in the world, but existed in a larger context and as part of a continuous tradition from the Roman Republic to the fall of Constantinople. I learned all sorts of interesting details and I hope I've done the topic justice. The article has received a peer review, achieved Good Article status (where it was suggested for a Featured Article nomination by the reviewer if the lead was improved), and was recently featured on the main page with a DYK, all of which were new experiences for me. This is my first Feature Article nomination and I will be available to address comments and make changes for a few hours each day for the foreseeable future. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I visited all four of the domes in the "overview" section's photographs a couple of years ago (without intentionally going on a dome-themed tour of southern Europe!), so can hopefully provide a useful assessment of this article. Here are my comments:

• Can anything be said about the development of engineering knowledge which underpinned the dome construction? - at present the article describes the notable domes and their construction techniques, but only mentions evolution in design processes in passing.

The sources I have found tend not to focus very deeply on that, but I agree such information is valuable. Where such statements were associated with a particular time, they were included in that part of the chronology; where they were more general and not time-specific in the source, they were added to the overview section. I believe that I have incorporated all that I found in the existing cited sources, but it may be worth trying to find engineering texts to cite in this regard, rather than sources with architectural history focus. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first sentence is confusing: "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element in their architecture " - "their" isn't correct here

I agree. I have changed it to "its". AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Pendentives provided support for domes over square rooms and there are early examples from the 1st century in the palace of Domitian and from 2nd century funerary monuments, although they would only become common in the Byzantine period." - early examples of what? Domes or pendentives?

Pendentives. I have changed the sentence to hopefully make this clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't really capture the material in the "wider influence" section - especially the adoption of this style of domes in mosques worldwide

Yes, the lead only mentions that there was in fact wider influence (in the first sentence) and this was because I was concerned about the length of the lead and adding a fifth paragraph. I will look at adding this after finding and incorporating additional material/examples in the "Wider influence" section, as suggested below. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The tense changes halfway through the first para of the "Overview" section - I'd suggest standardising on past tense (especially as almost all of the domes would have been destroyed by now)

I agree. I have changed to past tense (except in the one instance where it is clearly referring to the present). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The captions of the photos in the overview section could also be expanded to explain to readers the features of each of these examples

I agree. I added such information in those captions. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Domes reached monumental size in the Roman Imperial period" - give the dates here

The source doesn't give dates! It mentions "early Imperial times" and that "age" but I don't think we have precision on exactly when this change happened. The source just gives examples of small bath domes at Pompeii from the first and second centuries BC and the first known example of a large bath dome from "the Augustan age", both of which are included in the article. This may be because of the total loss of physical evidence of the large wooden domes that are known only from a literary source. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "This is the earliest existing example" - should this be "This is the earliest known example"?

I went to the source to check on that and page 42 is not part of the preview at this time. But I think that is safer language, so I made the change. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The only intact example from the reign of Emperor Domitian" - what this is an example of isn't clear

Reworded to clarify that it was an example of a dome from his reign.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• " today the church of Santa Maria della Rotunda" - not sure what the rules are, but I think that an en-Wiki red link would be preferable to an it-Wiki blue link (our coverage of ancient buildings in Rome is surprisingly limited, and red links help to encourage people to fill this gap)

I read up a bit on this, and you're right that red links are thought helpful. I like the interlanguage links because of Chrome's convenient translation feature. I have changed out the interlanguage links to show redlinks with the interlanguage link as a trailing abbreviation in parentheses. Should an English version ever be created, the trailing interlanguage link should disappear automatically. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Domes were also very common over polygonal garden pavilions" - given that all the other projects noted here are imperial constructions, is this an example of the elite also adopting domes? (and not being able to afford larger ones?)

I wish I knew; the source just mentions it in passing. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "During the reign of Emperor Trajan, domes and semi-domes over exedras were standard elements of Roman architecture" - this seems an overstatement: "During the reign of Emperor Trajan, domes and semi-domes over exedras were standard elements of monumental Roman architecture" perhaps?

Perhaps, but I suspect that the small bath domes that pre-dated any monumental examples continued to be built as needed. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "possibly due to the efforts of Apollodorus of Damascus" - the role of this person isn't clear: did he do more than "just" the Pantheon?

I don't think it is clear to anyone, honestly. Apollodorus is known to have built epic scale constructions, like Trajan's Column and his celebrated bridge over the Danube, and Trajan's Baths with their large half-domes, but lots of details about him are missing, as far as I can tell. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "temple to Asklepios Soter" - as above, a red link may be preferable here Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

changed with the interlanguage template to show a redlink with small trailing parenthesis link. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In the 4th century, Roman domes proliferated due to changes in the way domes were constructed, including advances in centering techniques and the use of brick ribbing." - why this helped to encourage the construction of domes could be made clearer - I presume it's because they became easier/cheaper to build?

That is my understanding as well. You would basically have to build the dome twice, with the first time in wood for the centering, so less centering was a big cost saving. Ribbing reduced the amount of centering needed (centering was needed just for the ribs, basically) and also allowed the material between the ribs to be thinner, which allowed buttressing to be smaller, so there was also a significant material savings in the "second" or permanent dome. Unfortunately, that page is not available in the Googlebooks preview, so I will not be able to try to expand on it until I can get hold of a physical copy at a library (or find an alternate source online). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a nearby copy of "Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome", but I have added an explanation of the expensive nature of formwork to the overview section from another source. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Dedicated two years after the Council of Nicea to "Harmony, the divine power that unites Universe, Church, and Empire," it may have been both the cathedral of Antioch as well as the court church of Constantine, and the precedent for the later octagonal plan churches near palaces of Saints Sergius and Bacchus and Hagia Sophia by Justinian and Aachen Cathedral by Charlemagne." - I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences

Agreed. I split the sentence. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first para of the "Sixth century" section feels out of place - it's about a single church, and not a broader trend like the other sections start with. Could it be swapped with the second para of this section?

I would prefer to start with a general statement about the sixth century, but chose not to use the one in the second paragraph because it is really just about Justinian, rather than the century as a whole. That church was finished just before Justinian's reign, and since it mentions the church from the end of the preceding section, I thought the segue/chronology was more important. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone back and added a general 6th century lead-in sentence from Krautheimer to the first paragraph and moved a bit from the second paragraph up that refers to 4th and 5th century dome usage. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• "6th century church building by the Emperor Justinian " - add the dates of his reign

Is it permissible to add in specific dates like that without a specific citation? I re-checked the cited source and, while it does mention the 6th century as a turning point consistent with how the sentence was written in the article, it later on the same page (203) mentions the "second third of the sixth century", which a close analogue to Justinian's reign of 527 to 565. Is that good enough? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think so - it's highly likely he was referring to Justinian's reign given how neatly the dates match up Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Could the first para of the "wider influence" section have a clearer lead sentence? (eg, noting that there is a relationship, rather than the nature of this being unclear)

Not from the source cited, unfortunately. I will try to find additional sources as part of the expansion of that section requested below. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Molfetta Cathedral" - I'd suggest red linking this as above

changed with the interlanguage template to show a redlink with small trailing parenthesis link. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Moscow emerged as the most important center following the fall of Constantinople in 1453" - what was Moscow the most important centre of?

Of architecture; added that word. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• The last para of the "Wider influence" section seems under-developed given that this is the main way which Roman and Byzantine-inspired domes survive today, and are continuing to be built. This section would also benefit from a photo or two. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both points. I will try to expand this section and add examples and images over the next few days. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded the "Wider influence" section significantly and added images in two sets of four. I am not sure how or whether to try to summarize it in the lead, however. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D, I decided to mention styles of influenced architecture in the lead, rather than specific examples of domes/buildings so as not to distract with too much attention or mislead the casual reader/skimmer. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt review, Nick-D! I fixed what I could immediately, and have a bit of work to do to address the other points. Of the domes pictured in the overview section, I've only been to the Pantheon, and it was a while ago. I would definitely appreciate it more today! AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My above comments are now met. This is an excellent article, and I really enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RoyGoldsmith

Continuing the second comment made by Nick-D above:

• The use of "their" vs. "its" (in "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element in their/its architecture...") is depended on which noun the “important element” refers to. Grammatically the subject of the sentence is "domes" and therefore "their", being plural, is correct. The only way to distinguish between domes and Roman Empire is to repeat a condensed version of the object. (I’d also substitute the word of for in.) Something like this: The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element of the empire’s architecture and had a widespread influence on contemporary and later styles.

I have no problem with this. I've changed it as you suggest. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• However, I’m more worried about the inexact word "element". Wouldn’t it be more precise to say "important venues" or "important examples"? Or did you have a more specific definition of element in mind?

I had in mind something like "component", as in Category:Architectural elements. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"element" is certainly better than either of the words proposed. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would go with component. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think element is the more common term in this context. It was also specifically used in one of the references I just added, "An Introduction to Shell Structures: The Art and Science of Vaulting", pg 35. That there is a Wikipedia category for architectural elements speaks to this, but I am sure you are not the only one to wonder about that word. It would be nice if we had an Elements of architecture article we could link to, but right now it redirects to Architectural style. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, please take to look at List of Roman domes. Don’t you want to say something in your lead about the history of architecture and the potential of domes for large and well-defined interior spaces?

I like List of Roman domes, but the primary source for that article (and the one cited for the lead sentence you reference, by Jürgen Rasch) is in a language I do not read! AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• And, being a candidate for FA, anything in the lead section must have an inline citation, either right after it or in the body of the article. If I challenged you for an incite pertaining to "The domes of the Roman Empire were important examples of the empire’s architecture" or that they "had a widespread influence on contemporary and later styles", what would you say?

After quickly checking WP:WHYCITE, I would say that I don't consider either of those statements to be particularly controversial but, since you have challenged them I will look for sourcing to incorporate. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please look at WP:LEADCITE as well. Also, I'm not "challenging" your phraseology. But it seems to me that, when striving for an FA, the powers that be will certainly insist that you follow the guidelines, more-or-less exactly. I just didn't want anybody peppering your lead sentence with ATWs. For example, "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element of the empire’s architecture and had a widespread influence on contemporary and later styles." I know this is in contention with FAC criterion 1a (see here), which requires text to be "engaging, even brilliant" but you have to balance. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No, this is good. I agree about high standards here. I've found and incorporated into the overview section and influences section sourced sentences that I think justify that lead sentence now. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, RoyGoldsmith! I have some work to do on the article, which will involve at least one trip to a library to reference a text I used that isn't available to me online. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main problem with the lead is that it doesn't define your subject. How 'bout this:

The History of Roman and Byzantine domes traces the architecture of domes throughout the ancient Roman empire and its successor, the Byzantine empire. The domes of this period were an important...

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine, too, but I am a little paranoid now about others objecting to something without specific citations to back it up. The use of the word "successor" to describe the Byzantine Empire, for example, is a known point of contention (there was an argument about that at the List of Roman Emperors article not too long ago). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Being bold, I added my definition, substituting the word "continuation" (in the 1st sentence of Byzantine empire) for "successor". I also changed what is now the second sentence, making it clear that the Roman and the Byzantine empires could be considered separate. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have found and added a source and material speaking to this issue in the overview section of the article and modified your sentences just enough to agree, RoyGoldsmith. Thanks for the help! AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• All images are CC or PD, and have sufficient source and author info - OK. (including 8 new images as of 10 August 2015)
• Infobox image verified via OTRS - OK.
• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• 3 images (in the gallery) lack EXIF-data, but upload histories show no signs of problems - OK.
• File:Mausoleo_di_galla_placidia,_int.,_volta_con_tetramorfo.JPG and File:Basilica di San Vitale cupola 2.jpg have a special Italian authorization tag as part of "Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2013". I have never seen that tag before (and couldn't find any documentation /sigh), but image usage should be OK nonetheless (images are hosted on Commons as part of a larger event) - OK.
• Please let me know, if any later changed images need checking during the nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe, I have added 8 images to the Wider influence section. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. All new images are OK with valid CC licenses and information. Flickr-images and images without EXIF-data show no signs of problems. GermanJoe (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirla

The article is incomplete. I find no explanation of the color symbolism of Orthodox domes. Onion domes are not mentioned, as are other church designs listed in the Russian church architecture (e.g., kokoshniki). In the "Influence" section, a link to Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire and a picture of the Kronstadt Naval Cathedral would be helpful. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the influences section and I am working to fill that out right now. I am not sure what you mean by color symbolism of Orthodox domes. If you are referring to non-Byzantine Orthodox domes, I think that is a bit too detailed for such a high-level summary section and will fit better in an article about Orthodox or Russian domes themselves. The only color symbolism I am aware of in the Byzantine domes themselves was the use of gold to represent heaven; is that what you meant? I don't think there were any Byzantine onion domes, so I assume you mean non-Byzantine Orthodox domes there, as well. I might be able to find a source that mentions them in the context of Byzantine influence, but I suspect that those were an original development that sources will not specifically tie to this subject. I can only add what I find in reliable sources, after all, so we'll see if there is mention of those or of "Neo Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire" (which sounds awfully narrow and specific - the odds are better at finding mention of general Byzantine Revival architecture). We'll see what turns up. Beautiful cathedral, by the way. I wasn't aware of that one. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ghirla, I have expanded the "Wider influence" section to include early Eastern European domes that were influenced by Byzantine architecture before those traditions developed in their own directions. I did find a source mentioning Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire and there is a link in the section to that now, and onion domes are mentioned as well (although not as examples of Byzantine architecture). I looked for a source on Google Books linking Kronstadt Naval Cathedral to the Byzantine domes but did not find anything usable. It was surprisingly difficult to find anything in Google Books on Eastern European Neo-Byzantine domes, but I did what I could. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• Taking a look now - Evad37 [talk] 08:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Spotchecks not done; footnote (FN) numbering is as of this revision (04:48, 28 July 2015 UTC).

References

• FNs 1, 9, 73, 75, 86, 88, 90, 97, 114, 121, 125, 135, 148, 165: page range should use a proper dash (–), not a hyphen (-)
• FNs 9, 68, 73, 75, 86, 88, 90, 97, 101, 112, 114, 121, 125, 128, 135, 148: Use pp. for multiple pages (not p.)
• FNs 30, 55, 116, 160: Page number(s)?
• FNs 48, 108: Use p. for a single page (not pp.)

I think I got all the dashes replaced and the single/multiple p's corrected, but I may have missed something, I'm not sure. If you found these with an automated tool of some kind, I would appreciate a second pass to check (and if you found them manually, bravo!). I also happened to stop at a library today that had two of the four books that the article is missing page numbers for, so there should just be two of those left. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I used CTRL+F to highlight hyphens; other than that, I just went through the list manually, jotting down any issues I saw. Anyway, p's and dashes look good now (there was one left which I fixed) - Evad37 [talk]

Thanks, Evad37. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting page numbers for the remaining two sources without them (now FNs 58 and 120) will be difficult. I believe they were originally Googlebooks sources, but they do not have Googlebooks previews available now. My nearby libraries don't have copies. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

• The various elements of a citation (author, date, title, publisher, etc) should either be separated by a period or by a comma (The Cite xyz templates typically use a peroid, while {{citation}} uses a comma). It doesn't really matter which style you use, as long as it is used consistently within an article.

Changed the citation templates to cite templates. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Arce, Ignacio (2006) – (conference paper) shouldn't be part of the linked title (consider using {{cite conference}}?)

Used cite conference template. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Bayet, Charles (2014) – "translation by" immediately follows a period, so should begin with a capital T

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Beckwith, John (1993) – "(2 ed.)" would look better as (2nd ed.)

– same goes for Johnson... (2009); Kleiner... (2010); Krautheimer... (1986); Mainstone... (2013); Rosser... (2011)

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Conti ... (2009) – The location and date (Cottbus, May 2009) should be separate from the title
  • Similarly for Ousterhout, Robert G. (1998)

Removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fichtenau, Heinrich

– link is pointing to The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

– reprints should be indicated by citing both the original publication date as well as the date of the re-publication – see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications

Fixed, I think. It as originally published in 1957, then this reprint was based upon a 1968 printing. But the most recent reprinting was in 2000? I used 1957 and 2000. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

– same (regarding reprints) goes for MacDonald... (2002); Mark... (1994); Milburn... (1988)

I used the 1976 copyright date as the original date for MacDonald, the 2010 digitization date as the current date for Mark (?), and could not find a date other than 1988 for Milburn. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. (1987) – there is an extra colon and space between the location and publisher

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Jones, Mark Wilson (2003) – architecture should be capitalised (to match other citations using title case)

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Mark, Robert (1994) – publisher location missing

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Moffett, Marian; Fazio, Michael W.; Wodehouse, Lawrence (2003) – only the city is specified as the location here – in other citations it's place, country or place, state (and the next citation uses London, England)

Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pisa, Nick (September 30, 2009) – other citations use title case rather than sentence case

Fixed, I think. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wittkower, Rudolf (1963) – the language the source is in and a translation of the title into English should be provided (you can use language= and trans-title parameters in the template)

I'm confused here. The source is in English. I see that the chapter was translated from Italian and republished in this English version, but surely I just reference the version I used, right? Should I be replacing the English title with the Italian one? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right – I must have been scanning through a bit too quickly at the end that I saw "S. Maria della Salute:" and mistook the chapter title as being in a foreign language. Sorry - Evad37 [talk] 01:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No obvious issues with source reliability. - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good – all source review issues are now resolved, apart from the two FNs missing page numbers. I don't think that's enough to hold up an FAC, though perhaps one of the @FAC coordinators: can comment. - Evad37 [talk] 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by nominator

Is there anything else I need to do here, or is it just a matter of waiting at this point? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not too late, I think the lead is too long. Can you shift about half of it down to the Overview section?

Also, I'm interested. What made the dome so popular with the Romans when they were essentially missing from other, ancient cultures like Mesopotamia, Egypt and, for the most part, Greece? Was it that the existence of concrete made vast indoor areas without obstruction possible? I'd like a little bit more on the intersection between technology and history. Are there any "Why domes?" sources that you could use in the article?

BTW, very good. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to have gone from one extreme to the other on the length of the lead. According to the Manual of Style, no more than four paragraphs is recommended, so I will try to pare that down. I don't think I should move the material to the overview section, though, as everything in the lead already exists in the body of the article.

About your questions, they are good ones, and I have them as well. I don't have a firm answer as to why domes are so much more popular in Roman architecture than those of the preceding cultures, but I do have some thoughts:

• 1) As is partially documented in the History of early and simple domes article, remains of domes do exist from ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, and Egypt. They are often defined away as "false domes" if they are wooden or corbeled. The Syrian area has a long continuous history of wooden pointed domed architecture that goes back thousands of years, according to E. B. Smith. In fact, some sources indicate that early Roman domes like the octagonal one in Nero's Domus Aurea were inspired by Hellenistic examples. And with the earlier imperial/divine ruler symbolism associated with domes, the transition from a republic to an empire may have made building domes (outside of bath architecture) a very sensitive thing in the early imperial period, when the reality of empire was still being clothed in republican rhetoric. I'm totally speculating here, but it may be no coincidence that Roman domes became most popular in the Byzantine period when the empire was reduced to formerly Hellenistic lands.
• 2) Domes were less popular early on in Roman architecture than most people think. I remember Ridley Scott saying that he added completely anachronistic domes to the Roman skyline in his movie Gladiator because it just felt wrong to him not to have them there.
• 3) The architectural record is incomplete or uneven for a variety of reasons, such as earlier domes being made of perishable materials (like the mudbrick used in Mesopotamian architecture, or the domed audience tents made of fabric used by the Persians and Hellenistic Greeks, or the early Roman wooden domes known only from a literary source), or subsequent over-building in the Hellenistic east resulting in the destruction of earlier examples, or religious politics in Persia resulting in the destruction or neglect of pre-Islamic architecture, or less attention being paid to non-Roman areas by European archaeologists.
• 4) More speculation: advances in mathematics may have opened the possibilities for architects to build domes in heavier, more permanent materials than wood. Specifically, the ability to calculate the volumes - and thus weights - of hemispheres would have allowed confidence that couldn't exist before. I note that the shape of the Pantheon (a sphere in a cylinder) recalls Archimedes' On the Sphere and Cylinder. This, plus the unprecedented wealth at the disposal of the emperors at their peak (and the Pantheon is a pretty good marker for that), may explain why such a large permanent dome was built then.

I have looked for the answers to these questions quite a bit (my interest in precedents to Roman domes was one of the things that got me interested in the topic to begin with) but I've been frustrated by the available sources. I think they are just open questions at this point. Thanks for the compliment, by the way, I appreciate it. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor: Have you looked at the Roman Architectural Revolution article and, in particular, its References and Further readings. (I think you once said that you had access to a library. I hadn't looked before but I got to this article via Concrete#History: "...a key event in the history of architecture termed the Roman Architectural Revolution...".) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: Yes, I have read that article (my comment on its talk page from 2009 remains the only one there!) and I have become more familiar with its topic in the process of writing this one. If I were to comment there today, I would say that the "Roman architectural revolution" article is inappropriately written and at least ought to include a section on the question of whether there was such a revolution, rather than treating it as fact. It is at best a disputed perspective that is found less and less the more technical and more academic the sources. Here's a quote from a paper on the structure of the Pantheon from Robert Mark and Paul Hutchinson, who investigated this question in 1986:

"Our modeling, then, has led to a new view of the influence of the actual structural behavior on the final design of the Pantheon, and also, for that matter, to a reinterpretation of the Roman architectural revolution.

"There is no question that during the zenith of Imperial Rome's power and wealth, Roman architecture acquired new aspirations and techniques of construction. The periods of exceptional commercial and political activity of any civilization are usually symbolized by large-scale building. And the architecture of the Hadrianic era, for which the Pantheon is probably the prime example, was no exception. Yet our study of the structure of the Pantheon leads us to question the generally held belief that the success of this new architecture was dependent upon the development of a unique Roman building technology."

Their paper makes a persuasive case. It was frustrating to have reliable sources disagree with one another on such a fundamental overarching idea, but the way around that was to focus on the facts, and leave subjective interpretation out as much as possible. I have consciously not written this article from that "revolutionary" perspective because I don't think it is a consensus view (my work on the history portion of Cement has also undermined my previous belief that Roman pozzolan at least was new). By focusing as much as possible on just the facts, an overarching pattern will emerge for the reader and they will be free to interpret it as they see fit, either way. I note that the article for Pantheon, Rome does not mention any architectural revolution. I do include a link to Roman Architectural Revolution in the Pantheon portion of this article, but I do not think more than that is appropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You know far more than I do about concrete (or anything to do with architecture or building). However, you may have been thrown off track by the naming of a Wikipedia article. What if Roman Architectural Revolution were retitled History of Roman cement? Everything about architectural revolutions was either eliminated or confined to one mention. Or, ignoring Wikipedia rules, the whole article was somehow deleted. Wouldn't the References and Further readings from the article support the idea that concrete was necessary to construct domes with "vast indoor areas without obstruction"? Remember, my original suggestion was just for a bit more on the intersection between technology and history.

And, BTW, what is supposed to happen now, now that you think the article is ready for review by the powers that be? (Incidentally, who are the powers that be and what are they waiting for?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know what is supposed to happen now. I haven't done this before. I guess the FACcoordinators will decide when the discussion has concluded and whether the standard has been met. And sorry for missing your point. I also wanted more on the technology for the article, but a significant amount of the written stuff out there is intended for a popular audience and is full of fluff with no actual substance to it. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

About the idea that Roman concrete was necessary to build large vaults, it isn't true. Roman concrete did not act as a monolith without lateral thrust or provide any structural advantage over brick, for example. The largest domes of the Renaissance, just as large as the Pantheon, were made with brick, and brick would be the material of choice until the Industrial Revolution made iron cheap enough to use. It is true that the aggregate used in concrete could be varied to be lighter at higher levels, but you could do the same thing with non-concrete construction materials if you wanted. Note that this article does addresses the question of materials in a couple places. Quotes: "Rounded arches, vaults, and domes distinguish Roman architecture from that of Ancient Greece and were facilitated by the use of concrete and brick. By varying the weight of the aggregate material in the concrete, the weight of the concrete could be altered, allowing lighter layers to be laid at the top of concrete domes. But concrete domes also required expensive wooden formwork, also called shuttering, to be built and kept in place during the curing process, which would usually have to be destroyed to be removed. Formwork for brick domes need not be kept in place as long and could be more easily reused." ; "Wooden domes in general would have allowed for very wide spans. Their earlier use may have inspired the development and introduction of large stone domes of previously unprecedented size." ; "Because Roman concrete was weak in tension, it did not provide any structural advantage over the use of brick or stone. But, because it could be constructed with unskilled slave labor, it provided a constructional advantage and facilitated the building of large-scale domes." AmateurEditor (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, I have reduced the length of the lead a bit and moved a few sentences around to balance out the paragraphs. It isn't reduced by half, but please keep in mind that this is a relatively long article covering a very long time period! I also rearranged some of the sentences in the Overview section so that the paragraphs have a better balance, in case that was a concern. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to gain consensus for promotion after being open for almost two months—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.