Template:Did you know nominations/Magdeburg Ivories

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) 02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Magdeburg Ivories

(

)

Christ being handed a model cathedral

... that the 16 plaques called the Magdeburg Ivories (one pictured) were probably made around 968 to decorate an unknown cathedral fixture destroyed in the next century? Source: ""The ivory was destined for Otto's imperial church dedicated to Saint Mauritius in Magdeburg (Saxony) which was raised to the seat of an archbishopric in 968. This plaque, and an accompanying series of New Testament and symbolic scenes, must have been made for the dedication of the church in that year. This ensemble may have been part of some liturgical furnishing such as a chancel door, a pulpit, or an altar frontal" and "Following a fire in the 1000s, the set was dismantled and individual panels were used on reliquaries and book covers". All with far more detail here

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Norman McMahon

Created by Boubloub (talk) and Johnbod (talk). Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 00:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

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: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: This is a well-constructed and interesting article. As far as DYK is concerned, it is new enough, long enough and I'm satisfied that reflects the sources without plagiarising them. I'm not an expert on copyright but the file at Wiki Commons claims to be in the public domain and the photographer has released it as such. Once the QPQ is done this should be ready to go. Bermicourt (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I may take a few days, but I'll let you know when I've done it. I've had a number approved just recently, some of which had been sitting round for weeks, & I'd like to space them. Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well done. GTG. Bermicourt (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this to an image slot, but the image file is saying that you need to indicate that it is public domain in the United States as well. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. You'd think being 950+ years old was enough .... Image first published in 1857. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I adjusted the URL for the Met Museum source per the source you used on this template, which shows the whole text. Restoring tick per Bermicourt's review. Yoninah (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)