Template:Did you know nominations/Vénus de Quinipily

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Vénus de Quinipily

(

)

~~... that The Iron Lady (pictured) was an object of a pagan veneration and was thrown into river twice as many couples performed erotic acts near the statue?~~

Reviewed: Praxis Pietatis Melica

5x expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self nominated at 16:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

I've done some copy-editing on the article. The hook seems reasonable, but I haven't checked any sources. --Slashme (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The hook needs to be reworded. While the article says It is said that "foul", "indecent and obscene" rites were also practiced at the statue, and that many couples performed "erotic" acts near the statue. It doesn't actually say when these things happened, and that was only one of several different stories associated with its history. In a different section below that, it states As the statue became an object of a pagan veneration, Charles de Rosmadec — Bishop of Vannes and missionaries requested Claude de Lannion — Lord of Blavet Quinipily, to destroy the statue. In 1661, Lannion ordered the statue to be thrown into the Blavet river. and in 1670 Lannion ordered it smashed into pieces, but it was instead thrown into the river again. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ALT 1: ... that during seventeenth century, The Iron Lady (pictured) was an object of a pagan veneration and was thrown into river twice as many couples performed erotic acts near the statue?

Changed hook and article to add time. However, I dont get your second point about Lannions. Can you elaborate? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. I didn't see that you had asked me a question when you reworded the hook. And you might want to get an opinion besides mine. From the way I read the article, the performing of erotic acts is not specifically tied to why the statue was thrown in the river. The second quote is what I see in the article that says why the statue was thrown into the river. I'm not suggesting you need to name Lannion in the hook, just that the sentence where is says it was thrown in the river on the orders of Lannion is as I quoted it above. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ALT 2: ... that during the seventeenth century, many couples performed "erotic" acts near The Iron Lady (pictured) and it was thrown into river twice for being an object of a pagan veneration?

@Maile66: I get your point now. I have re-worded the hook. Sorry. I was busy with other article so could not comment here earlier. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs a complete revew. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Five time expansion checks out, and although i can't read a couple of the hook refs, the one i did read was consistent with the hook. I made a few copyedits. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Longer review for ALT2: The content of the above review by Hamiltonstone still stands; I'm just expanding it here to ensure this nom can be eventually promoted. Expansion of article and length are new enough (for 4 May). Hook supported by online citation #23. Hook image is free. No plagiarism found. No problems with disambig links or with external links. Issue: The QPQ is inadequate and was completed by other reviewers, although the expander/nominator had already achieved more than 5 DYKs. However according to Vivvt's talkpage, this editor is now otherwise occupied and may not be able to complete this nomination if we demand another QPQ. So to save wasted time and in the interests of clearing the current DYK nom backlog, I'm taking the liberty of donating one of my many spare QPQ's to this nom (see Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John the Divine, Calder Grove). This is a nice article, well-presented and fully cited, and deserves promotion. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)