Talk:Lacrateides Relief

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Lacrateides Relief in 2022

• ... that the Lacrateides Relief is a large ancient Greek relief depicting the Eleusinian deities and heroes?

• Source: Papangeli, Kalliope (2002). Eleusis: the archaeological site and the museum (PDF). Athens: Omilos Latsi. p. 243. ISBN 960-86743-2-8.

• • Reviewed:

Created by Deiadameian (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Deiadameian (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC).

• Not a review, but the hook as currently written may not meet WP:DYKINT as being interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. @Deiademian: Can you please propose additional hooks that would be more familiar to general readers either unfamiliar with or only have a basic understanding of Greek mythology? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Deiadameian: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, then. What about "...that the Lacrateides Relief is a fragmented ancient Greek votive relief that was found in sixty pieces?"? Deiadameian (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC).

I'll leave it to you, but I'd personally word it as something like: ... the Lacrateides Relief (pictured) was found in sixty pieces? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Two points (not directed at the latter alternative in particular, but the overall wording in both): if I'm understanding the article correctly, the number of extant pieces seems not to be exactly sixty (the surviving fragments, which number about sixty), and I think it's worth considering that "in sixty pieces" could sound as though those sixty pieces constitute the complete relief. The latter would likely be remedied by the presence of the image (if it's used), though arguably one shouldn't need the image to avoid ambiguity. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as there hasn't been any activity here since my last comment, I'll add that I think Deiadameian's first hook was the more interesting one. It was just worded in such a manner that it wasn't comprehensible to the average reader. How about something along the lines of "... that the Lacrateides Relief depicts gods from an ancient initiation cult?" – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine I guess. Deiadameian (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I like the new wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer still needed. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - n

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Deiadameian I have tagged four things on in the article that require attribution. A QPQ is not needed. The picture isn't clear at a small size. SL93 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately most other pictures available are not clear enough at 100px, except maybe this one which is probably the best alternative. As for the hook, since it was agreed to be changed to another contributor's suggestion ("... that the Lacrateides Relief depicts gods from an ancient initiation cult?"), does the initial nom need to be rewritten? Deiadameian (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The other editor's hook can be used. I tagged four parts of the article that need attribution. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Deiadameian: Please address the above.--Launchballer 16:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw the issues and unfortunately I do not know how to fix them meaningfully without possibly misquoting or misintrerpeting the sources. Honestly I've moved on from this article and its nomination, it has proven to be too problematic, with multiple issues and more trouble than it's worth. it's better to simply close the nom. Deiadameian (talk) 17:05, 04 June 2025 (UTC)