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