Template:Did you know nominations/Inundation, Gibraltar
- 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 Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Inundation, Gibraltar
[edit]- ... that the only landward road to Gibraltar formerly ran along a narrow causeway next to an artificial lake called the Inundation?
Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 07:27, 29 May 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. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
| First review completed |
. Nice article. Length, date and hook reference are all in order. No copy vio. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 23:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
| Second review completed |
Article rightly says that there were two crossings, one holding tight against the Rock and another which would be much more pleasant. Otherwise looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's easily resolved. The first of the two crossings you mention seems to have hardly ever been used and then only in wartime (I found only one example mentioned). The second crossing via the causeway was the only routinely used one. I've amended the hook to reflect that. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Needs to be stated explicitly in the article. I don't doubt it, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good now. New enough, long enough, well-referenced, no close paraphrasing found. Neutral as neutral can be. Good to go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- COI? Promotional? Either reviewer can address this issue, but it must be addressed by one of them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I thought "Neutral as neutral can be." would be explicit enough, but apparently not. No COI evident, no promotional material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)