Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar

< Template:Did you know nominations
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar edit

(
)

Veüe du d'Estroit de Gibraltar et des Environs, avec les tranchées du Siège mis en 1704, by Louis Boudan (1704)

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

Notification to reviewers
Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
First review completed

This article appears to have been added on March 1 and nominated April 6, so it does not seem to have been nominated quickly enough and I am not sure that it has been expanded five-fold. The article does meet the word-count requirements, however, and the hook is under 200 characters. The hook is a little grammatically awkward, but it is interesting. The photograph in the hook is public domain and is used in the article. Citation style is in line with Wikipedia standards and the sources seem reliable. All sources are offline so it's hard to know whether there are plagiarism or paraphrasing issues. There does not seem to be a conflict of interest since the topic discussed is a historical event that does not necessarily put Gibraltar or Spain in a positive light. I am a new DYK reviewer, so hopefully the next reviewer can give a second, more seasoned opinion. Weatherby551 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a correction, the article was created in my user space on March 1 and moved into mainspace on April 6. As the DYK review rules state, "sandbox → mainspace is eligible". We only count the time from when the article first appeared in mainspace. It is also completely new - five-fold expansion does not come into play as there was no previous article on this topic. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw that it said "draft" in the revision history, but I could not tell whether that meant it had been moved from a sandbox. Otherwise I would not have mentioned the five-fold rule. Sorry for the confusion. If timing is not a problem, it appears that the article meets the DYK criteria. There a few dead blue links on the page you might want to fix though. Weatherby551 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If you look in the revision history, it shows the article moving from user space to mainspace at 15:09 on April 6. That's the kind of thing you need to look out for when working out if an article is recent enough. :-) If you're happy with it, could you possibly change the "possible" symbol in your review to the green tick symbol? Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I totally missed it. I will look more carefully in the future. Symbol has been changed. Weatherby551 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries, thanks very much for your review. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Second review completed

Should not be published: Advertising. - Nabla (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I reviewed this article for MILHIST recently. What about this article is advertising? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
We've just recently run List of sieges of Gibraltar, by another editor, and I've previously contributed DYK articles on the Third, Fourth and Fifth Sieges of Gibraltar. Nobody has at any time suggested there was any problem of "advertising" with any of those articles. They're just historical articles covering events that happened hundreds of years in the past. Prioryman (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"Come and visit this interesting location, loaded with the memories of 'events that happened hundreds of years' ago!" Yep, glamourising, advertising. - Nabla (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, care to provide a couple of quotes from the article that support your comment? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The above is not a review, but a POINTY disruption of DYK processes. Actual review required. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The reviewers are explicitly asked if "whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article". So expressing my conviction that there is both here is a review, whether you agree with it or not. But I am glad to elaborate a bit further, as asked, as I'd agree the prose style was somewhat unconventional:
Prioryman, has campaigned hardly against the Gibraltar DYK restrictions, whether asking users what would they accept to lift them, or making proposals based on skewed presentation of data. I do not know about any COI in the strict, 'external', sense, but Prioryman has a clear excessive interest in this.
Naturally we do not expect, tourist information, prices, museums, listed on the article. That would be stupid, right? Which I presume no one is. But the restrictions are on because there is a continuous string of article making Gibraltar look good. Pepole go visit Rome to be "close" to the locations historical events, go see the pyramids. I like to visot such location over here in Portugal, and have met quite a few tourists from the UK who seem to very much appreciate to visit the location of old wars. Showing one of them, showing a series about them, in the ongoing context, is promotional. - Nabla (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
My "clear interest" is simply that I established Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar - which has never been the subject of any controversy whatsoever, but has unfairly become collateral damage - back in 2007. I've written eight articles on Gibraltar in the last year, of which seven have appeared on DYK. If you think that seven DYKs in a single topic area over the course of a year is excessive, then you have a very extreme idea of what constitutes excess. Regarding the historical interest on the ground, this particular siege is relatively obscure and there are no physical traces of it on the ground: no monuments or statues, and the places where it happened have either been demolished or built over long ago. There's literally nothing to see relating to it. In short, your arguments are completely baseless. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No, THIS is a POINTY disruption of DYK processes. The above is just people getting fed up with how the DYK talk page has been abused for the past half a year or so.Volunteer Marek 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • When Nabla cannot produce a single sentence that would not be in the article had GibraltarPedia not been run, yet insists it is unsalvageably COI and advertorial, that fits most definitions of a POINTY rejection. I did not comment on Prioryman's rejection of the linked nom, nor will I, although I will note that I knew it would be controversial when I saw the high profile Wikipediocracy members/supporters who had nominated it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    The problem is not any sentence in the article, the problem is yet another Gibraltar article in DYK. You can not ignore context. Anyway, I don't even care that much, I came here because Prioryman prompted me to take a look at the current status of this situation, when he poked me at me talk page. Prioryman, if you have no affiliation with GibraltarPedia - and maybe you don't - you surely look like you have. Maybe youi should detach yourself from them? To, hopefully, close my intervention here: I did ONE review, this is my opinion based on the data I have gathered reading around here. I hope I am right, but I may be wrong. What I very much dislike - and very much points that I am correct - is the attitude from you that whomever is not for our position is not even worth listening to. (I have restored the sequence of interventions, to keep a true record of events) - Nabla (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    I am well aware of the context, which is beginning to grind my nerves. There is no blanket ban on Gibraltar-related articles, nor is there blanket agreement that all Gibraltar-related articles are inherently promotional to the point they cannot be featured on the main page. Without tangential proof of POV or COI in the article nominated, going against consensus and currently-applicable guidelines like you have done above is quite POINTY and akin to "I don't like it"ism — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    What consensus? What guidelines? Care to point them out? I admit I may not know them. I have read something about this, but surely not all. - Nabla (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options (last RFC; consensus I was referring to)
    WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG (guidelines [specific to DYK]). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you. But that is lots of text. Would you care to point exactly what guideline I have disrespected, by having an opinion that there is a conflict of interest and that the article is promotional (both in a broad sense). Which guideline says I can not have that opinion about this article in this context? - Nabla (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    I did not say that you had "disrespected" a guideline, but that you (or, rather, your review) were not in accordance with it. The guidelines here are article- and hook-specific, not placing articles in a wider real-world scope. Your above review was not, however, article or hook specific. You are welcome to the opinion that the DYK blurb may be blatant promotion because it is part of Gibraltarpedia, just as I may express concerns about hooks regarding new products or media and others may have the same concern about articles related to Indonesia, but failing an article should be based on the applicable (article- and hook-centric guidelines).
    If the article contained sentences like "Gibraltar is just the coolest guys! Visit and then tell your friends!", we would certainly be on the same page. That is not the case here: any advertising in this article, if extant, is (sub/inter)textual, which is generally subjective. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    And just to clarify, I wrote the article for WikiProject Gibraltar, which has never been a source of controversy. Nabla hasn't identified anything in the article which could possibly be POV or COI (seriously, how can COI even exist concerning a 300-year-old military conflict of which there are no physical traces?). He's quite simply trying to impose a personal veto on any DYK relating to Gibraltar, which is against consensus and wholly illegitimate. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    «The guidelines here are article- and hook-specific, not placing articles in a wider real-world scope" is blatantly false. Gibraltar related restrictions are related to a subject, not a article; and they relate strongly to 'a wider real-world scope'. So I made a review inline with that consensus, which guides Gibraltar related reviews. And, as you clearly state, I have not disrespected any guideline.
    I am not trying to impose any veto - but you are trying to impose your opinion on me! If my one single review is enough to block this from getting to the main page, than the process is hugely broken, it should not happen. If the subject is controversial let's call some more eyes to it and let them give a helping hand. I don't want to impose my opinion, but I fail to see why you should be able to impose your's. I've asked for extra eyes at the Village Pump - Nabla (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Blatantly false? Nuts. Guidelines does not always equal consensus after an RFC. I made it quite clear that the DYK project guidelines (WT:DYK and WT:DYKSG) are different than the Gibraltarpedia consensus. Nice try at WP:WIKILAWYERING, but no. Prioryman's already posted a request for a third opinion (which, counting me, means we need a fourth opinion) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a wonderful article - and I hope it is soon run through the Good article process. I can't imagine how this could fail the minimal requirements of DYK. Rmhermen (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What you are forgetting/ignoring, Nabla, is that the community has repeatedly considered and rejected proposals for a moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs. The last such proposal, only two months ago, was rejected by a 27-2 majority. What you are trying to do is to ignore that very strong consensus and impose your own personal one-man moratorium. That's simply not acceptable and it's not going to happen. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, I am wikilawyering? Are you sure it is not the other way around? There is consensus, expressed at the top of this page that Gibraltar DYK should be reviewd, I did just that. Whether you like it or not.
Rmhermen, yes, the article is quite good, I would not be surprised that it even got to Feature status soon. But that is not the discussion here, is it? This DYK, and this is a Gibraltar related article, not just any-other-article (it even has it's own specific section)
Prioryman, First, I know a moratorium was rejected. Just as lifting the restrictions was also rejected. Do you recall that? That is, my review is legitimate. Second, I have already stated I have no intention of blocking this to get to DYK, I simply made my review. In good faith, I suggested to ask, I asked myself - and now welcome that you also asked - for further input, so that my single opinion does not become enough to block this, should it be the only one. So I ask you to stop making false accusations. - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Crisco and I have been trying to get into your skull the point that you have not attempted to review this article. Claiming that you have done a review is untrue. When you edit this page, you can see at the top the criteria that you are supposed to use. You haven't said anything about the article in relation to those criteria. Length, newness, hook, meets policy requirements? You've ignored all of those. You've also ignored the Gibraltar restrictions requirement to comment on COI and promotional aspects within the article. Your comment above that the article is "quite good" is literally the first thing you've said about the quality of the article. Everything else that you've said above is about the general policy issue of running Gibraltar-related DYKs in the first place, and as has been pointed out to you, the overwhelming consensus is that they should be run. This is not the place to discuss general policy; you should be using Wikipedia talk:Did you know for that. If you are not interested in reviewing DYK articles then please don't waste everyone's time with non-reviews like this. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think, based on Nabla's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:FEED, we should ignore his/her pseudo-review here. There certainly appears to be consensus that Nabla's "review" is not helping.
    (And it is me the one wikilawyering? How many rules have you tried to throw on me by now? Even wp: Article Feedback!? :-) - Nabla (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    I've suggested you read two guidelines and a discussion. Everything else is shorthand for a point I'm making, which you can ignore to your leisure as you've apparently done with the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Now I'll review. The article is new enough, long enough. The grammar is certainly up to DYK standards but may need some polishing before GAN. AGF on offline sources for verifiability and close paraphrasing. I don't see anything here which would not have been here had there not been a Gibraltarpedia project; content-wise everything is what I'd expect in an FA. Hook is interesting but appears a little long. Can you trim it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it on. I've added an ALT2 hook which is shorter; what do you reckon? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, ALT1 and 2 are fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    The first review was concerned about the DYK metrics stated at the top. As I do agree with it - the article fits the general metrics quite fine - I have not even mentioned them. My short review mention the exact things that are asked further about Gibraltar related articles. In my opinion the article is promotional. And when asked why, I explained: because it "glamourises" Gibraltar, it shows Gibraltar as a place where interesting things happened, something that in my experience UK tourists are prone to be sensible too. So, to me, the article feels like subtly promotional, because it is well written for its (presumably) intended target audience. It is OK that you disagree with that, but I talked about the article from the start. And claiming that there is no current location related to the events is a week claim - as I suspect Gibraltar was not recently obliterated by a nuclear blast, I presume the general location is still there.
    Again, I do not want to hold this nomination based only on my opinion, but I ask you to wait a while to see if any further opinions show up, instead of pushing it on based only on your opinion. - Nabla (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • To keep this from being held up any longer, I don't see any sign of promotional material or conflict of interest: this is a history article about a siege. By Nabla's definition, any article on Gibraltar history, or indeed about Gibraltar at all, is unacceptable as it would "glamorize" Gibraltar, and that is not how the DYK restrictions on Gibraltar have been set up, nor what the consensus has been. If Nabla plans to review any further DYK nominations, I strongly recommend getting acquainted with WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG, as these are the rules that govern DYK submissions. As for the hooks, ALT2 has the advantage of not repeating the word "siege". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • By Nabla's definition, any article about interesting history glamourises the subject; Albertus Soegijapranata's role in the Semarang Cathedral, the Javanese statues of Jesus at Ganjuran Church, or the 1740 Batavia massacre would all fit under this personal definition which has been used as a roadblock. I have indicated that the editor should read WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG several times, and s/he has not responded except to quote an RFC consensus as the guideline, when it never was. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I specifically addressed possible advertising by writing that nothing was there that would be out of line with an FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    Alas, Indonesia articles is not under any kind of restriction, is it?
    Very well, then, I don't have the time, nor the energy, nor the wiil, to spend on you. It was nice to see first hand how a group of editors works in abusing WP. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    No topic is under the kind of restrictions you want, including Gibraltar. As for the second point: love your glass house. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reinserting tick; note that ALT2 was approved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Twelfth_Siege_of_Gibraltar&oldid=863433778"