Template:Did you know nominations/Soldier Artificer Company

Soldier Artificer Company

 * ... that the Soldier Artificer Company (members pictured in working dress) was the British Army's first unit of military artificers and labourers?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Tracer, Gibraltar
 * Comment: As this article was developed from a draft by ACP2011 (though not edited by her), I've added a co-credit for her.

Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk), ACP2011 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 09:40, 18 December 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:
 * Currently reviewing this nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, this article was moved from user space to article space here at 09:24, 18 December 2012, the same day as this nomination, so the article is new enough. The version moved is easily long enough. Should technically have been labelled a Gibraltar-related article at DYK. Hook length and interest is fine (source not checked yet). Will look at article and its sources more closely tomorrow and complete the review then. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading through the article and its sources, it all looks fine, though I don't have access to the main source used here, which is Connolly (1885) - though it does appear to be online, see below (it would be courteous to link to that to allow readers and reviewers to verify the information added from that source). It is not a DYK requirement, but it would be nice to use some more recent sources on the history of this organisation. You should also really replace the source used for the sentence and quote on the statue (File:Royal Engineers' statue, Main Street, Gibraltar.JPG). There are ways to cite that sort of information - linking to an image page on Commons is not one of them. And is there any reason why a cropped version of the image of the statue is not used in the article itself? The image used for the hook is fine (published 1855). All offline sources accepted in good faith, though I did Google to check the book details. The Connolly book is here. The Finlayson and Fa book is here. Finally, the stamp bit is sourced to here, but that site appears to be a wiki. Can you find a better source? Overall, good to go (much of what I mention above goes beyond DYK requirements, but I've added the notes here anyway). I do need to check at WT:DYK whether a second review is needed or not, and will do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried to find better sources for the statue and stamp. They do exist, but I can't access them right now. The information there is correct, even if the sources are not ideal, so Symbol confirmed.svg. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Review 2:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I concur with the above reviewer regarding sources, but for these purposes I think the hook is interesting, sourced correctly, and the image passes with the correct licensing. Also, per WikiProject rules, I reviewed for a violation of WP:COI, and have found no problems in that regard. This seems good to go.  Cdtew  (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)