Template:Did you know nominations/CITIPEG

CITYPEG

 * ... that the association CITIPEG has charged the Gibraltar Government with discriminatory policies against Spanish workers?
 * Reviewed:

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 16:43, 16 February 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.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Everything checks out. The article is barely long enough. The Gibraltar Chronicle confirms the hook fact. The hook is a little bit on the boring side, but o.k. by me. There clearly isn't a conflict of interest, since this is hardly good publicity for the government of Gibraltar.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Article - created new on 16 February, the day of nomination, so new enough; just scrapes in with 1502 characters of readable prose; every paragraph has at least one inline citation; no copy vios detected using earwig and a quick run on duplication detector on English language sources doesn't pick anything worrying up; article status is showing un-assessed, so not a stub; I'm not familiar with the 'discussions' re Gibraltar DYKs but I don't feel this very short article gives an unbalanced nor promotional view, so I consider it sufficiently neutral.
 * Hook - short enough at 119 characters; correctly formatted; correctly cited/supported by refs #3 and #4; not particularly striking but no less so than many others, so acceptable.
 * QPQ done; no images.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  11:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  11:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Promotion reversed at the request of Prioryman in WT:DYK: issues relating to "libel action and a subsequent settlement" not mentioned in article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, if anyone has an ALT to suggest, then I'm open for discussion. As per the concerns of the current hook, I think it is still quite a "safe" wording (explaining the position of an advocacy organization towards public policy). It is not a libel suit issue between individuals or companies. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the above legal issues are worked out, assuming the article remains above the minimum size, I'll be happy to review the article if it needs an additional review. Anne (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've revised the article to remove some unnecessary duplicate references and a section supported only by dead links, and added a section about the recent libel issue mentioned above. I've also moved the article to CITYPEG as this seems to be the preferred spelling. Could the reviewers please have a fresh look at it? Additionally, I suggest a revised hook, as follows. Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that the workers' association CITYPEG has criticised both the Gibraltarian and Spanish governments for their policies affecting Spanish workers in Gibraltar?
 * As the article has been re-vamped and an ALT hook has been suggested, I did another review from scratch:
 * Article - created new on day of nomination, so new enough; 1935 characters of readable prose, so long enough; neutral; at least one inline citation to every paragraph; no copy vios detected using earwig/duplication detector; un-assessed so not a stub.
 * Hook ALT1 - within length criteria at 157 characters; correctly formatted; correctly cited/supported by refs #5 and #6; and interesting.
 * QPQ done; I detected no COI or promotion regarding Gibraltar - if anything, it's rather anti-Gibraltar.

My apologies for taking so long to get back to this. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  18:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)