Template:Did you know nominations/King's Bastion

King's Bastion

 * ... that King's Bastion (pictured), instrumental in defending Gibraltar during its Great Siege, was later used as a generating station and is now a leisure centre?


 * Alt1 *... that King's Bastion (model pictured), instrumental in defending Gibraltar during its Great Siege, was later used as a generating station and is now a leisure centre?

5x expanded by Gibmetal77 (talk), ACP2011 (talk). Nominated by Gibmetal77 (talk) at 11:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Will do a QPQ on Operation Fish. Done. --Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 23:03, 22 March 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.



Article

1. had its prose portion expanded at least fivefold; 2.  Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1500 characters 3..Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral cites sources with inline citations is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism 4. Not a BLP, so N/A

Hook Format – less than 200 characters (shorter is better) and meets the formatting guidelines Content interesting hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people

Other QPQ – nominators who have five or more DYK credits and are nominating their own articles must review another article. Image must be free (no fair use) be used in the article show up well at small size (100 × 100px)

Looks good to go to me. Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This reviewer concurs with second review suggestions. Alt image is fine with me.  Montanabw (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Gone for four months and the double reviews still continue. Anne (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article meets all the DYK criteria of newness, length, neutrality etc. The hook is referenced and the image licensed, though in my view, the image is less interesting than the photo of the model of the battery used elsewhere in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I also thought about the model pic... Now added Alt1 with the alternative photo. --Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 12:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT1 looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Anne, great to see you back! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In celebration of Downton Abbey (which my family just discovered this winter) and British aristocracy, I've been writing a bit the last few days on the Haggard family, including Godfrey and Vernon. Anne (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg These reviews are not quite complete. As it notes in the reviewing instructions at the top of this template, at least one reviewer must explicitly check for any conflict of interest or promotional concerns, and report on these in the review, and neither reviewer has done so. It shouldn't be difficult to complete that task, and I look forward to the review being completed. It isn't yet, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the term "neutrality" in my review. This was supposed to encompass any conflict of interest or promotional content and I believe these are not present. Having said that, I looked at the article again, and have removed some duplication from the part about the leisure centre. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that "neutrality" is sufficiently specific given the restrictions: it should be mentioned that these particular aspects have been checked and are not an issue. If you think that after the duplications were removed the article is no longer promotional, a new tick would be in order to finish off the review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am accepting that all standard DYK compliance has been checked during the two reviews already completed; I have diligently gone through this article as someone totally uninvolved in the Gibralter DYK concerns of the past. I can detect no specific promotional nor COI problems in this article. (I hope it's okay for me to step in here and offer a third 'neutral' opinion on this?). SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)