Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar 2

Gibraltar 2

 * ... that the Gibraltar 2 skull (pictured), found in 1926, is that of a four-year-old Neanderthal girl dubbed the Devil's Tower Child?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hackensack Drawbridge

Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 21:51, 15 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 Absolutely fine.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Review 2:


 * Symbol question.svg One link is dead (or the domain expired), and Internet Archive did not archive its pages. Stopped in the middle of Citation 3 because the website is dead. However, this skull is notable, so no COI suspected, and no promotional advertising contained. --George Ho (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I'll check now to see what link went dead and try to remedy it. Anne (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The domain of source #3, the newspaper 7 Days - Gibraltar's Free Weekly Newspaper, expired. I haven't seen this happen previously. Would you prefer that I make it an offline source, or should I keep it, assuming that the owners of the domain will eventually realize that it has expired? Anne (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to Gibraltarpedia hooplah, keeping that dead link is no longer a good option. Also, the same source must have been used in other Gibraltar-related articles, especially ones that are featured as part of DYK in the Main Page. Online or offline, that dead source must be replaced. Therefore, no COI or advertising shall be suspected or arised. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Actually, if you want to keep that dead source, another active (or offline) source is required for that cited info. Otherwise, it must be replaced with "citation needed". --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that I cannot use that reference as an offline source? Because nowhere have I seen any requirement that Gibraltar sources must all be online. If that is another hoop that writers of Gibraltar articles have to jump through, then that is something that needs to be part of a larger discussion. Otherwise, I would be happy to put X's through most of the DYKs that we have up for nomination, since most of them have at least one offline source. I am so sick of jumping through these hoops and seeing the incredible hypocrisy at DYK. I routinely review articles where I have to accept offline sources on good faith and I am really running out of good faith. Anne (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's going to be near impossible to find an archived version of that page since their robots.txt was extremely restrictive. I checked all the usual locations (internet archive, webcite, Google cache) and a few other ones and couldn't find anything. I would think that a situation like this would be handled exactly like paywall sources in that good faith is assumed and the source is accepted. Legoktm (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of situation is covered by Link rot; George, please note the following from that page (my bolding): "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no other sources to confirm that information, then I guess we must assume in good faith that the dead source may be reliable. However, I wonder if any other reviewer agrees. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The link is now live. The domain was changed from .com to .net. May have to change links in other articles that use this source. Froggerlaura  ribbit 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png That's a relief! Either I again or someone else may review this article completely. --George Ho (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article seems fine to me. It is long enough and new enough, the hook is sourced, the image is appropriately licensed and the article is non-promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)