Template:Did you know nominations/Crucifixion plaque

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Crucifixion plaque

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Killaloe Crucifixion Plaque, 11th century

• ... that Irish Crucifixion plaques date from between the 9th and 12th centuries and may have once been attached to altars, book shrines, reliquaries or high crosses? Source: * Johnson, Ruth. "Irish Crucifixion Plaques: Viking Age or Romanesque?". The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, volume 128, 1998. pp. 95-106. JSTOR 25549845
• QPQ: Marguerite Gautier-van Berchem

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

• Article recently created, long enough, neutral, hooks are cited in the article, no [1], accurate, sourced, doubtless of interest to many. Only problem. the hook is well over the 200 ch limit (~230 at the moment); how about that Irish Crucifixion plaques date from between the 9th and 12th centuries and may have once been attached to larger ecclesiastical objects such as altars, book shrines, reliquaries or high crosses? (at 199), or even lose the "ecclesiastical", which would bring it down to 184chs that Irish Crucifixion plaques date from between the 9th and 12th centuries and may have once been attached to larger objects such as altars, book shrines, reliquaries or high crosses? Of course, if you wanted to be brutal, you could go for that Irish Crucifixion plaques date from between the 9th and 12th centuries and may have once been attached to altars, book shrines, reliquaries or high crosses?, bringing you in at 161. Haven't bothered with the formality of ALTs, see what you think. SN54129 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hi Serial, thanks for the look. Have gone with your shortest ALT. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nice one Ceoil, great article with some class images. SN54129 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P4