Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice
[edit]- ... that the Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice commemorates the sailors, soldiers and airmen of the Commonwealth of Nations who died in the two World Wars?
Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 22:15, 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:
New enough at time of nomination, mostly well explained (although the bit about the shell casings is a bit murky), hook fact occurs in the block quote, which has a ref before it, well referenced with no over-close paraphrasing found. Unfortunately the article is a bit lacking in length, because there is a pre-existing section at North Front Cemetery that is 1,293 characters long without the block quote; this article therefore needs to be 6,465 characters without the block quote to meet the fivefold expansion requirement, and I make it 5,389. I suggest adding information about the list of names - see the Commonwealth War Graves Commission source - and if possible the height of this specific cross. Plus I am a bit unclear about whether this is the focal point for Remembrance Day services, or whether they are sometimes held at the other memorial; clarifying that, especially if practice has changed, might be good. I also suggest adding an alt on the Pathé film as first film made in Gibraltar. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I wasn't aware of the rule about sections of articles. In the future, I'll be more careful when I create an article not to make a section too big if the section topic is appropriate for its own article. I anticipate having the expansion completed by tomorrow. In the meantime, an alternate choice of hook:
ALT 1 ... that the British Pathé film recorded at the dedication ceremony of the Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice (pictured) represented the first motion picture ever made in Gibraltar?
- I expanded the article last night and early this morning, with particular attention to clarifying the Remembrance Sunday celebrations. I'll expand the article further later this morning. Real life is so intrusive! Anne (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've run into a problem that I don't know how to correct. About half an hour ago, my signature stopped working. Now they really have blacklisted me. I'm signing manually. Anne (talk) 24.7.222.55 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- With a brand new password, I'm back in the game. I'm no expert at determining expansions; however, I do believe that I have met the 5x expansion requirement today. I have also addressed all the points that you mentioned above. Please note, that in my research for various monument articles, I rarely have come across information detailing the exact height of a specific war memorial. I've researched this monument on two separate occasions--for the North Front Cemetery article and this article. I've never found the specific height information. Thank you. Anne (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring this; thanks for taking the time to add more, I had a feeling you didn't realize pre-existing sections counted too, and I was trying to give you ideas. I'll check it out now if all the alarms elsewhere will keep it down to a dull roar :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I wasn't aware of the rule about sections of articles. In the future, I'll be more careful when I create an article not to make a section too big if the section topic is appropriate for its own article. I anticipate having the expansion completed by tomorrow. In the meantime, an alternate choice of hook:
Now long enough: 7,631 characters by my count, so more than five times as long as the pre-existing section in the cemetery article. I checked a random selection of a little under half the references and found no overly close paraphrasing. The article is well referenced, clear, and neutral in tone, and both hooks are referenced. The picture has a suitable licence and looks clear at the small scale. Good to go (assuming a second passing review) with either hook, with the picture suitable for either. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Review 2:
- DYKcheck confirms that the article is long enough for a new article, and at 7,622 prose characters meets the 5x expansion requirement due to the inclusion of 1,293 characters of material from the North Front Cemetery article; my own random sample of the references found no close paraphrasing. As noted in the other review, the image is from commons and carries the proper licensing, and looks good at the small size. Both the original and ALT1 hooks are supported by inline source citations. The article is neutral in tone and non-promotional, and I see no basis for conflict of interest. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)