Template:Did you know nominations/Windmill Hill, Gibraltar

The following discussion 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) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Windmill Hill, Gibraltar edit

View of Windmill Hill and Europa Point

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 23:04, 28 June 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. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
First review completed
  • The text seems a bit confusing to me. When it says "Afghanistan and Barbary Partridges" I would assume that both those entities are are countries to which soldiers are deployed. The phrasing could be changed to reduce confusion. Also, this hook (the fact that they share the island) is not directly mentioned in the article. By virtue of it not being mentioned, it's not sourced either. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that they share Windmill Hill is a combination of two sourced facts: that the army has used it to train for deployments to Afghanistan (source 8 under "Military usage") and that Barbary Partridges nest there (source 16 under "Wildlife and caves"). They co-exist in the same place. I agree that the hook could be a bit clearer though, so I'd suggest the following alternative. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT1 looks good to me. It reduces ambiguity and removes the unsourced notion of "sharing." The article is long enough, was new at the time of nomination, and the two components of the hook are each cited (see above). The hook is also interesting. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Second review completed
  • Not good to go, of course, because once again neither reviewer has addressed the COI or promotional requirement, which one of them must do (or a third reviewer can address the issue, of course). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

- I have read through this well written article and detect no promotion or COI; I have verified the hook is supported by refs #8 and #16 (I did duplicate ref 16 so it is immediately adjacent to the sentence it supports in the hook). As it has already been reviewed twice, I am AGF the other criteria has been checked. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have struck the original hook and copied the approved ALT1 to the top to try to make it easier for whoever promotes the nom. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)