Jump to content

Talk:Landelinus buckle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

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

  • 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
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes

Image eligibility:

QPQ: No - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I have added two more QPQs to the nomination. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the QPQs. This nomination is good to go now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]