Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sieges of Gibraltar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of sieges of Gibraltar edit

List of sieges of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in my (not-so-humble) opinion, a fascinating subject covering European politics and conflict from the beginning of the fourteenth century to the end of the eighteenth. Gibraltar is a tiny piece of rock on the south coast of Spain, but its proximity to North Africa and its position at the entrance to the Mediterranean have given it an importance in world history quite disproportionate to its size. This was great fun to write, and I'd like to think it's up to FL standard. As ever, constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement are very welcome. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cirt (addressed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments by Cirt

NOTE: Please respond below these comments, and not interspersed in them, thank you.

  1. There is a good deal of info before the actual list in the List of sieges sect. I suggest breaking this into its own sect, titled, Background, and then just have the List of sieges sect for the tabular material, itself.
  2. I'd recommend breaking the lede intro sect into two paragraphs, perhaps at the point beginning with, "Although there have been fourteen sieges ..."
  3. Image review: Four (4) images used, all free-use, all from Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection all look like they check out okay.
  4. Two (2) existing redlinks in the article: Alonso de Arcos and Marquis de las Torres. Might be nice if these were made to be at the very least stubs with three or so references each. Not necessary, of course, but would be helpful.
  5. References sect - I'd suggest breaking this into first Notes sect, then References sect, per WP:LAYOUT, that's the standard way.
  6. Portals - I'd recommend adding at least a few relevant portals, either in the See also sect using {{Portal box}}, or at the bottom of the page using {{Portal bar}}.
  7. Sourcing review - sourcing standards look good, meticulous use of inline-citations.
  8. Other than those suggestions and recommendations, above, looks pretty good. Keep us posted here if you've attempted to address above.

Thank you for your efforts on this quality improvement project to a list page on Wikipedia, — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. To what end? The section s not just background, but a description and explanation of the sieges.
  2. Fair enough; done.
  3. Thank you.
  4. There's nothing wrong with red links per se and I know very little about those two subjects, so I'm inclined to leave them red, but I'll consider it
  5. That's one way of doing it, but I quite like the style I use and I'm not sure how changing it would be an improvement except to make it consistent with somebody else's preferred format
  6. Do you have suggestions for relevant portals, and what would this add to the reader's understanding of sieges of Gibraltar?

Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gibraltar Portal most definitely needs to be added and Portals are always a requirement for Featured (and often Good) level articles, where applicable. SilverserenC 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Cirt
  • The page is quite good and thank you for addressing some of the recommendations, here are some responses, below:
1. Yes, it is a description and explanation of the sieges. This is precisely what Background sections are for. That info is not itself part of the List, so it doesn't belong in the List subsection.
4. You could at least try to create stubs and then leave messages at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects informing them these stubs had been created. It doesn't take an expert to create a stub, and there are only 2 redlinks so this should be relatively easy.
5. References sect - this is not just the preferred option but the best way to do it, the current method is confusing, and never used in any form of paper, journal, or book in academia or any standardized system. For uniformity, best to break that into two sections, first Notes, then References.
6. Portals - see recommendations by Silver seren (talk · contribs), above. Please try to add some relevant portals. Both related to the topic itself, and some of its parent topics.

Without any attempts at all to address or even try to address points 1, 4, 5, and 6, I don't think this page is quite yet ready for Featured quality status. It's quite almost there, actually, but those recommendations would really help, in my humble opinion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I was WP:BOLD and made some changes to show how the page would look incorporating recommendations, above. Now viewers of the page can more clearly see that the Background info belonged in its own sect, not inside of the List sect; and that the Notes and References sect should be split apart. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: If these changes stay in the page and are part of its stable history, I think the overall quality and look of the page stands much improved, and I'd be happy to say it

would be ready for Featured quality, at that point in time. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It appears that the Background and List sections formatting I'd recommended will be retained as stable. Thanks very much for keeping these recommendations, and for your contributions to Wikipedia towards this quality improvement project. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is obviously a quality article, but I'd argue that it goes beyond the realm of "list article" and is more appropriately a full article. Have you considered moving it to Sieges of Gibraltar and aiming for a "featured article" rather than "featured list"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • HJ, it's your call, if you'd like to stick here, then you're welcome to do so and then I'll review the list but if you're FAC-bound, do let us know so we can archive the nomination (and wish you all the luck in the world over in "the other place"!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it would fare well at FAC. It was written to list a series of events, so I think this is the appropriate venue for it. It perhaps contains more prose than most lists, but it is fundamentally a list I think. I'd be happy to hear any comments you have, TRM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments nice work.

  • "Despite its small size," not sure you need "small", it's self-evident.
    • You're right; gone.
  • "began later in the eighth century. The campaign eventually took 800 years to force the Moors back across the Strait, and did not reach the Bay of Gibraltar until the fourteenth century" forgive my maths but this doesn't seem to add up to me...
    • It reached the bay in the early fourteenth century (leading to the first siege), but the campaign wasn't concluded for nearly another 200 years.
  • Is it worth linking Castilian people? Or something you deem more appropriate?
    • I can't see any harm in it.
  • "fell out with each other" perhaps this is expanded upon later, but I'm not sure if this is fully explanatory.
    • I'm reluctant to go into more detail there for fear of duplicating (rather than summarising) the table, unless you think it's necessary?
  • "walls.[34][33]" could we have refs in numerical order?
    • Of course, done.
  • "of the Reconquesta, decided" earlier, it was the Reconquista.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Finlayson's name is misspelled in reference 50. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like Nick-D, I was a reviewer of the MILHIST A-class nomination for this list, and consider that it meets the FL criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Solid list, I've had my eye on it since DYK. Somewhat more prose than usual, but no problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets the criteria, so why not? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody please fix the typo I noted two weeks ago? I don't want to promote something with an outstanding glitch like that, and I'm sure TRM doesn't either. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_sieges_of_Gibraltar/archive1&oldid=1146518938"