Template:Did you know nominations/Breakneck Battery

Breakneck Battery

 * ... that by 1981, Breakneck Battery (pictured in 1942) represented one of a handful of surviving 9.2-inch gun emplacements in Gibraltar, weapons that at one point had been mounted across the British Empire?
 * Reviewed: Gibraltar Ranges

Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 20:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Review 1:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is non-promotional, long enough and new enough. The image is appropriately licensed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Review 2:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg As with above, article meets all necessary requirements and is non-promotional, and no COI issues perceived. The image is appropriately licensed. Good to go. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the hook is referenced to discovergibraltar.com (currently source 15). However, when going to the "tunnels - gun batteries - fortifications" section, I find the text "Spur Battery. The 9.2 inch gun preserved and displayed by the Imperial War Museum at Duxford Airfield was recovered from Spur Battery, Gibraltar in 1981. By then the 9.2 inch guns at Gibraltar were the only surviving examples of this type of weapon, which had been installed around the turn of the century at strategic points throughout the British Empire." which I suppose is the text used to support the article and hook. Considering that this text is factually incorrect (there are even now other surviving examples outside Gibraltar, and even more in 1981), I fail to see how this can be used as a reliable source for the hook, and thus I fail to see how the hook can be approved. Fram (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your source for your claim of other surviving examples? An unsourced personal claim by an editor isn't a valid a reason to halt the approval of a hook. Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "My" claim? It's the claim of the article you want to promote to the main page of Wikipedia. "Gibraltar's 9.2-inch guns represented three of the 25 remaining examples". You can also check BL 9.2 inch gun Mk IX–X. Fram (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've (again?) misread the hook, though to be fair I can see how it could have been ambiguous. I think I can see where your confusion has come from. The hook is clearly referring to 9.2" guns in Gibraltar - there were once a dozen such emplacements but by 1981 the number was down to three, hence "a handful". It's not meant to refer to emplacements outside Gibraltar. I've added the words "in Gibraltar" to the hook to make this crystal clear. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You've actually made it worse, the second part of the hook now has no reason to be there anymore. And the problem remains that the hook/article, and the source used to reference this, are not in agreement, with the source appearing to be incorrect. An incorrect source can hardly be acceptable as the source for a DYK hook, can it? By the way, you claim "but by 1981 the number was down to three", when actually that number was 5, at Levant, Spur, Breakneck, O'Hara's and Lord Airey's Batteries. Not relevant to this discussion, but it's always better to use correct arguments anyway. 14:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the hook fact can be supported by page 58 of The Fortifications of Gibraltar, which lists the surviving 9.2" gun emplacements. The hook could probably be simplified though, so I'd suggest an alternative as below (which doesn't really say anything that's substantively different from the original). Prioryman (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * * ALT1 ... that Breakneck Battery (pictured in 1942) represents one of a handful of surviving 9.2-inch gun emplacements in Gibraltar?
 * There seems to be a discrepancy in the sourcing regarding three vs. five. The After the Battle source, which is dated in the citation as 2006, does list the five Fram quotes (and with guns). Is this date correct? (As an offline source, I can't check it myself.) If so, is that section of the article actually describing a point in time when the five did all still have their guns, which would make "Five batteries still remain on the Rock" an accurate description at that time, though no longer true in 2006? If that's the case, that date needs to be established. Since the Recent history section goes on to describe Levant Battery as losing its gun in the 1970s and Spur Battery as losing its gun in 1981, there needs to be something that nails down the time that quote is talking about in the text; otherwise, it's puzzling, and the source citation just adds to the confusion. (After the Battle began publication in 1973, according to its Wikipedia page, so that does not preclude an article appearing before Levant Battery was decommissioned in the late 1970s, but that would mean the date on the citation is wrong.) As for the hook, it might be more simply put as "is one of the few surviving" rather than "represents one of a handful of surviving": to me, "handful" carries implications of five or so, which is not what we want to convey. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have an earlier After the Battle (#21 from 1978) which lists all five batteries. The discrepancy you mention is simply that three of the five batteries are in one location - the Upper Rock - and the rest are elsewhere in Gibraltar. Our article does actually spell that out: "Breakneck Battery is one of three surviving 9.2-inch gun emplacements at the Upper Ridge of the Rock, the others being O'Hara's Battery and Lord Airey's Battery. Of the three Upper Ridge emplacements, O'Hara's Battery is in the best condition.[13] The two other batteries mentioned, Levant Battery and Spur Battery ..." (bolding added). Of the five, by the time that issue of AtB was published, only Levant was disused - the guns were still in place in the other four at the time of publication. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, I think we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to ref 15 at all, or even ref 13, but just talking about the After the Battle blockquote beginning "Recent history" from the 2006 article (ref 12), which includes the following line: "All of them are single-gun batteries each with a 9.2-inch gun". All five listed, including Levant and Spur, are each with a gun, as in present tense, and only Levant "can be visited", again present tense. The introduction to the quote says "surviving 9.2-inch guns", which means to me that the entire quote is talking about those guns as being in their emplacements, not just the empty emplacements. Unless you can date this material—is this passage from 2006's #129 a reprint from or reworking of 1978's #21?—then it's puzzling that a 2006 source is talking about at least two guns as being in place in a present tense narrative when they were actually removed at least a quarter century earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean now. Levant was opened to the public in the early 1970s. Spur's gun was moved to Duxford in 1981 and the battery was opened to the public that same year. Lord Airey's and O'Hara were opened to the public in 2010. Breakneck is still closed to the public. So the quote has to come from before 1981, if it refers to only a single battery being open to the public. I think you're right that it's a reworking of 1978's #21, as the reference to only Levant being open dates it to some time between the early 1970s and 1981. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. I may be right about the reworking, but I'm using logic: I don't have the sources, and I'm leery of allowing logic here, since it can so often be wrong. Even if we both believe that's probably what happened, that isn't good enough: unless the 2006 source specifically indicates that this is a reprint or a reworking of an article from the time or specially about the area in the 1970s (which could be in the text of the article itself), the quote is still a problem, because it otherwise has to be considered as being an article written in 2006 about 2006, and it isn't usable in that context. What is needed, ideally, is 1978's #21, so whatever it has can be quoted, and used chronologically as well to establish facts. Which of these sources do you have available to you, and what do they say? If you don't have them, are they obtainable? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have #21 next to me and I could get hold of #129 within a few days, but to be honest I really wonder if it's worth the effort. Why don't we just use a different hook that doesn't present any sourcing problems? How about the following? Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT2... that the 9.2 inch Mark X gun at Breakneck Battery (pictured) was described as one of the "crowning glories" of the defences of Gibraltar?


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg The above hook is supported by a source in the article. The source is offline, so AGF on that. Striking through other hooks. Otherwise, the DYK is good to go. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)