This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
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).
Comment: Grésin plaque and Landelinus buckle created; Niederdollendorf stone expanded 5x. Three interesting artefacts and quite a striking Christ image.
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)[reply]