Talk:Grésin plaque

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 18:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Niederdollendorf stone
• Grésin plaque
• Landelinus buckle

)

Niederdollendorf stone

• ... that the Grésin plaque, Landelinus buckle, and Niederdollendorf stone (pictured) are each controversially conjectured to depict a pagan-inspired Christ?

• Source: Friedrich, Matthias (2023). "The Enduring Power of Images". Image and Ornament in the Early Medieval West. Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–104. (Gresin: p. 64; Landelinus: p. 54; Niederdollendorf, p. 47).

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pachyballus ornatus. Template:Did you know nominations/Tuhi Martukaw. Template:Did you know nominations/List of chronic pain syndromes

Created by Tenpop421 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Tenpop421 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC).

• Comment: Grésin plaque and Landelinus buckle created; Niederdollendorf stone expanded 5x. Three interesting artefacts and quite a striking Christ image.

All three articles:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article: - Yes, the picture is used in one of the three articles.
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - One QPQ has been done, but this nomination needs three QPQs. It's a little confusing, given that this nomination page claims that only one QPQ is needed, but WP:QPQ says that "Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article. As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth nomination of an article for DYK, each of those requires a separate QPQ review." Since you have six DYK credits, you need two more QPQs - one for each of the three articles.
Overall: @Tenpop421: Nice work on these articles. This nomination actually needs two more QPQs (this nomination page claims that you are required to give 1 QPQ, but that is an error and doesn't match what WP:QPQ says). Once these reviews are done, this nomination is good to go. In the meantime, I'm probably going to bring up the QPQ discrepancy somewhere; that is a pretty glaring error, but it isn't your fault at all. Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you for informing me. I will return to this when I have the two other QPQs. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have added two more QPQs to the nomination. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the QPQs. This nomination is good to go now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)