Template:Did you know nominations/San Lorenzo in Piscibus

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 Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

San Lorenzo in Piscibus[edit]

(

)

... that the ancient Roman church of San Lorenzo in Piscibus was briefly used as a sculpture studio before being reconsecrated by Pope John Paul II in 1983?

ALT1:... that the Roman church of San Lorenzo in Piscibus takes its name from a fish market that used to be located nearby?
Reviewed: Jacob Hannemann

Created by Alekjds (talk). Self nominated at 21:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, seems to meet policy. I can read Italian and have verified that the first hook text is corroborated by the reference; ~~however, I'm not sure the private website Roma Segreta ("Secret Rome") is the best of sources. Maybe its biography and a GBooks search can be used to find a better source?~~ The second hook text is not presented as a fact in the article, only as a possibility. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Laying aside the second hook, how about using the Vatican source from the Pontifical Council for the Laity for the sculpture studio fact? The same dates and name are mentioned in that source as well; I've added it along with the Roma Segreta source. — AJDS ^talk 05:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominator will need to provide a QPQ (quid pro quo) review, given that over 50 previous DYKs have appeared on the main page (far above the minimum five required for QPQs to kick in). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've already done the QPQ review, as noted above: Jacob Hannemann. — AJDS ^talk 07:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would try to avoid "Roman", because it could (at a glance) also mean built by the ancient Romans or be confused with Romanesque, - perhaps "in Rome"? Perhaps think about "ancient" also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; feel free to change "Roman" to "in Rome" if this ever gets the green light. — AJDS ^talk 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is mentioned in the two given sources that the church's denomination "in porticu maiore" refers to its vicinity to the Old St. Peter's Basilica? Alex2006 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, the sources are confusing. I've moved back those two sources and moved forward the source from Armellini, which is the source that makes that connection, referring to the church come situata fuori del portico del b. Pietro. — AJDS ^talk 07:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! Anyway, I checked my books: the Portico which Armellini mention is not that of Saint Peter. The author refers to the Portico ("la portica di San Pietro") which in the middle ages connected Ponte Sant'Angelo with the Basilica, and stretched along the rione Borgo. San Lorenzo lay outside this portico, which was a covered passage protecting pilgrims from sun and rain. Alex2006 (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the learned correction! I obviously presumed too much when looking through the sources. — AJDS ^talk 15:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  - You are welcome! This evening I'll add another source there (Borgatti), then I will continue to read: I think that it's time that this nice article goes to the main page... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to finish review; previous reviewer hasn't edited in over two weeks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus: Another ref has been added to support the first hook. Could you check if this answers your original objection? Fuebaey (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fuebaey Yes it does, thank you! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus: Nice, could you finish the review with a tick mark? Just to let the promoters know that it's ready. Fuebaey (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fuebaey Did that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: since changing an icon at the top of the review won't be seen by anyone (and it will be interpreted as having been superseded by later icons), I changed it back and put the tick instead with Qwertyus's comment just above that accompanied said change to tick. A promoter will now be able to tell this is ready for promotion. Hope you don't mind. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)