425:
two new reviews. You choose to stick to some rules without addressing any of my concerns (which does not surprise me). The first rule is about DYK eligibility, and your view is that if something does not fail the guidelines it should be OK. I disagree: I think an article should be decent, at the very least, before it gets on the front page. The second is that
Gibraltarpedia, where your argument basically is that you're not Victuallers. Mine is that the spirit of the guideline is that we should make sure that no DYK articles have a COI smell to them, and my contention is that you are very involved with that project. Rather than repeat the rules that we all know very well, you could try to argue that you are in fact a neutral editor, and I don't think that you can. In other words, in both cases you probably have the letter of the law on your side, and cannot make a decent argument that you have the spirit and intent on your side as well. DYK articles should advertise good, new articles, and DYK as a whole should be able to be seen as free from conflicts of interest. An article that is simply not decent shouldn't be on the front page, and an involved editor shouldn't OK the review. But I've spent too much time on this already and will leave it to the other DYK volunteers to make the call.
486:
neutrally, with the various events in its history being discussed and even the possibly negative events, such as the cancelling of the tunnel project, appears to be worded fine. The recent events over the past year in its history will require the subject to be kept up with, but that's neither here nor there for this nomination. The sources are all properly formatted and, while there could possibly be some reliability issues with one or two of the sources (Google Maps?), there are backup sources for the information, so there's no issue and can be discussed on the talk page. There doesn't appear to be any copyvios that I can see from doing some spotchecks. The hook appears to be fine, proper length and all, interesting enough, and directly referenced in the article. A review was done with the nomination and all the images appear to be free ones. So, all good, I think.
384:, and while I don't necessarily disagree with Prioryman's proposal, I do agree with at least the tenor of Binksternet's response). The article as it stands is just not a very good article, though it survived AfD: a large chunk of it is a list of "notable" buildings, half of which are redlinks, and the largest part of it is about that proposed highway, including significant (and probably overplayed) minutiae on a possible renaming and on the contract for the construction--none of that is of great encyclopedic value. I hear stuff like "it doesn't have to be a decent article for DYK since that isn't in the rules", and I disagree with that--this article is one of those that I wouldn't want in the shop window. But that's, of course, nothing but an opinion.
449:; does this mean that you recuse yourself from any review of an DYK nomination about the Middle Ages? Your concerns are, frankly, not my business - I'm just a reviewer here, I'm not the author or the nominator. We are both agreed that the article is well sourced and neutral. The only outstanding issue is notability. That has been addressed outside of DYK and since there is no agreement that the article is non-notable we have to assume that it meets the criteria.
400:
article moving forward. The principle is simple: if an article is non-notable it should be sent to AfD. If it's at AfD, a pending DYK nomination should be suspended, as this one was. If it survives AfD, it has to be presumed notable and the review must continue forward on that basis. Another editor duly started an AfD (which I didn't participate in), it resulted in no consensus and so here we are again. I don't think a DYK reviewer is entitled
357:
535:
939:
690:
482:
172:
874:
ideas, as far as I can tell. Second, given the fellow's fairly recent death and his publicly described pious worries about the old name of the road, do we really want to be putting on the main page a witty mention that the move to honour him was rejected in favour of his spiritual opponent? Seems a bit harsh for the main page, when we can assume a few friends or relatives will notice it? --
710:
622:
I'm gonna assume that anyone who reads this is aware of
Prioryman's involvement in Gibraltarpedia, the whole push to fill up DYK with as many Gibraltar related articles as possible (to the point where even Jimmy said that he should cut it out) and his aggressive argumentative battleground approach in
657:
I had a more appropriate response to this comment but I self reverted it to preclude anyone getting their panties in a bunch. But basically, this type of unfounded, insulting, mean spirited accusation is a good characterization of what is wrong with one side of the discussion. Yours. Sorry to be the
379:
Prioryman, "Given that Drmies hasn't done anything about their notability concerns, I suggest moving ahead with the article"--what? This was a DYK review; I have no editorial, technical, or moral obligation to "do" anything with my notability concern. I turned it down for DYK, that's all there is to
873:
I've boldly fixed the name of the bishop in ALT2. There are two other possible issues with it. First, is it (or something with the same meaning) actually stated in the article and cited at the end of the statement? The silent protest thing was about the government's ideas, not the socialist party's
742:
The clarification tag can probably be easily dealt with by
Prioryman. And the merge discussion currently has five straight opposes (for the good point that the road has little to do with the Tower besides name commonality). So that should hopefully be closed or withdrawn soon. Once that and the tag
424:
You misunderstand me, or you misread me. A DYK reviewer has a right to say "no", and my "no" is not an override of an AfD discussion (which was hardly a resounding "keep"--it was "no consensus"). I've explained my reasons for not wanting this on the front page, as I explained my reasons for wanting
220:
has only generated coverage because of the redesign; it's the equivalent of BLP1, in a way, and sources do not substantially discuss the existence, history, meaning, etc. of the road. Note also that all the newspaper articles and websites that cover this issue is very, very local, and consider that
506:
I suppose I should also comment on the notability discussion above. The article was properly nominated at AfD due to the concerns and it closed with the article not being deleted (even if a No
Consensus close seems rather questionable with four Keeps and no Deletes). So, there doesn't seem to be a
408:
By the way, regarding the two reviewer requirement, the restrictions specifically state that "Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers (One of the two reviewers should not be connected to
GibraltarPediA)." That condition has been met. Only one other review is
757:
The clarification tag was put in by me; the particular part of the sentence didn't make sense to anyone who didn't either read the source or live in
Gibraltar. Now that I've read the source, I see what it means (or at least, I see that it can be made to make sense) - I'll fix it in a minute if it
399:
I was simply commenting on the fact that that you'd expressed concerns over notability without taking it any further than an expression of concern. As I said above, I asked BlueMoonset for advice and they quite rightly said that absent an AfD, there was nothing in the DYK rules that prevented the
485:
The article was moved to mainspace at 18:34 on
October 10th and nominated here at 02:27 on October 15th, so it meets the time criteria. The article is certainly long enough, so i'm not going to even bother running a specific character amount check. The article appears to be treating the subject
603:(vote #16). I do not believe it is appropriate for him to attempt to review this article, as it gives the impression that he is seeking to obstruct the nomination in furtherance of his opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs. In addition, his grounds for opposing are not part of the DYK criteria.
578:
The article as it stands is just not a very good article, though it survived AfD: a large chunk of it is a list of "notable" buildings, half of which are redlinks, and the largest part of it is about that proposed highway, including significant (and probably overplayed) minutiae on a possible
440:
Merely being a member of a WikiProject does not generate a COI, as you know perfectly well, and you are wrong that I am "very involved" with
Gibraltarpedia; I'm not involved at all in its management, nor in the recent article competition. My involvement with Gibraltar is as the founder of a
267:
I asked BlueMoonset for input on this; their advice was, "If there isn't an AfD or a merge under consideration, there isn't a DYK rule that stops it cold pending resolution." Given that Drmies hasn't done anything about their notability concerns, I suggest moving ahead with the article.
215:
Sorry. I hate to be the party-pooper here, but I am. Sure, the article is long enough, and there is no neutrality issue here. But there is, in my opinion, a big problem with the article itself. The most substantial and best-sourced part of it deals with the tower--for the rest, the road
557:
What are you defining as "substance"? All the information in the article is about the road, its history, the changes made to it over the years, and the controversies related to those changes. That is all substance. If another hook needs to be presented, that's easily done.
538:
Drmies is essentially right. The article is 90% filler, with little substance. One of the requirements for DYK appearance is that the hook should be interesting. It follows from that that another minimum requirement should be that article should have some
717:
which trimmed a lot (most?) of the bloat (which guarantees I'll be unable to pass final approval). The first paragraph of the Recent history section has a tag which needs addressing (I couldn't copyedit that), and there's a merge tag on the
785:
330:, with "no prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion". I'm not sure where we do from here, but even if the Gibraltar two-review restriction ends, I think this would still need the current review to be settled in some way.
404:
to declare an article non-notable, especially if that article has survived AfD. Individual editors don't have authority to overrule an AfD outcome. So as far as I understand the DYK rules, the notability issue is off the
380:
it. While we're on the topic, yes, this would need another review of course--and as far as I'm concerned it needs two reviewers, given
Prioryman's involvement in the Gibraltarpedia project (most recently on display
618:
This kind of statement really takes some chutzpah. For YOU to accuse ME of non-neutrality, when you review
Gibraltar related articles yourself, including this one, is really about as hypocritical as one can
713:
I consider myself more or less neutral on the Gibraltarpedia project as a whole. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I just want us to get these done with... while following due process. I've given an
153:, 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
629:
And yet, he was the first one to jump in and review this article. Sorry Prioryman, if there's non neutrality and Conflict of Interest, here, you might want to start by looking in a mirror.
121:
175:
Length and date are fine. Article is well-written and usefully illustrated. Sources look OK too; spot checks show no obvious copyvios. No conceivable COI or promotional aspects.
244:
Probably the best way to move forward with this one is to put the article up for AFD in order to test Drmies' notability concerns; if it survives it can be re-reviewed here.
150:
969:
623:
regard to the issue over at DYK discussion. But if any clarification is needed , then note that even Drmies has been getting tired of this attitude
36:
601:
Knowledge talk:Did you know/Archive 87#I support a ban on Gibraltar DYKs (please indicate length, and any limitations to be observed after expiry)
600:
446:
17:
906:
820:
442:
221:
Google Books, for example, offers nothing substantial on this road. In my opinion, this is a candidate for AfD (or merge into
107:
731:
As for the buildings: a list is viable, especially for an urban road. The text is not counted for DYK size —
157:
or promotional concerns about the article under review.IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
44:
40:
949:
700:
665:
636:
588:
546:
885:
Fair point - let's change it instead to something like the following, which I think meets both your concerns
784:
It requires a bit of local knowledge, I think. When the article refers to "the loop road" it's referring to
914:
879:
850:
763:
749:
649:
564:
513:
492:
931:
774:
736:
723:
369:
335:
65:
919:
845:
825:
102:
944:
695:
660:
631:
583:
581:. I concur with that opinion and would like to add that the whole article reads like a press release.
541:
295:
I have put the article up for AFD in order to settle the question before continuing with the review.
890:
863:
793:
608:
454:
414:
300:
273:
249:
180:
808:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
875:
759:
744:
644:
559:
508:
487:
195:
141:
927:
770:
732:
719:
430:
389:
365:
331:
230:
222:
61:
360:
New review needed. Since the submitted image has been deleted from Commons, I've removed "
926:
That seems unobjectable to me, although I'm too involved to give the tick. —
886:
859:
830:
789:
604:
450:
410:
296:
269:
245:
176:
356:
963:
840:
507:
legitimate notability concern now, as the proper process was followed and concluded.
154:
191:
137:
624:
534:
381:
426:
385:
226:
938:
689:
481:
171:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
709:
599:
Volunteer Marek voted to ban all Gibraltar-related DYKs in the discussion at
910:
658:
one to point it out to you seren, but it's you who's acting the bully here.
829:
to North Front Avenue, instead proposing that it be named after Bishop
942:(Putting a check here also, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion).
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
693:, I'm satisfied with the article and the hook proposed below, ALT3.
687:<-- Notwithstanding the low quality of the discussion above,
643:
It's because of editors like you that Anne left the project.
858:
The latter might be a possibility for April Fools' Day...
129:: GibraltarpediA; moved to article space on October 10th
714:
90:
81:
807:
There are a couple of alternative hook suggestions on
788:, which is a real pain if you're driving, by the way.
151:Knowledge talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options
579:renaming and on the contract for the construction
441:completely separate and much older WikiProject,
743:is dealt with, it should be good to go, right?
364:" from the hook, and added a missing hyphen.
8:
144:). Self nom at 02:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
49:No further edits should be made to this page
811:which I thought I'd copy here for comment.
769:I guess it's a bit clearer... —
970:Passed DYK nominations from October 2012
843:preferred one of their main roads to be
106:was named after the seventeenth-century
576:This was already addressed by Drmies:
7:
24:
447:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages
18:Template:Did you know nominations
937:
907:Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party
821:Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party
708:
688:
533:
480:
355:
170:
882:) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
766:) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
739:) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
443:Knowledge:WikiProject Gibraltar
303:) 11:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
252:) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
233:) 04:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify this page.
934:) 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
893:) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
866:) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
796:) 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
777:) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
726:) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
611:) 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
457:) 10:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
433:) 06:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
417:) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
392:) 00:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
276:) 00:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
198:) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
183:) 11:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
68:) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
1:
909:proposed that a main road in
758:hasn't been fixed already. --
754:18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
704:14:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
654:19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
640:16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
372:) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
338:) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
953:14:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
669:20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
592:08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
569:08:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
550:08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
518:11:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
497:11:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
190:Thank you for your review.
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
986:
72:
409:now required, not two.
122:The Crown at Whitebrook
110:at the end of the road?
41:the article's talk page
149:Per the discussion at
718:article. —
445:. You're a member of
225:) more than for DYK.
136:Created/expanded by
155:conflict of interest
826:Devil's Tower Road
715:extensive copyedit
103:Devil's Tower Road
73:Devil's Tower Road
823:opposed renaming
145:
977:
952:
947:
941:
752:
747:
712:
703:
698:
692:
668:
663:
652:
647:
639:
634:
591:
586:
567:
562:
549:
544:
537:
516:
511:
495:
490:
484:
359:
174:
135:
56:The result was:
34:
985:
984:
980:
979:
978:
976:
975:
974:
960:
959:
958:
948:
943:
750:
745:
699:
694:
664:
659:
650:
645:
635:
630:
587:
582:
565:
560:
545:
540:
514:
509:
493:
488:
326:The result was
97:
95:
91:Article history
75:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
983:
981:
973:
972:
962:
961:
957:
956:
955:
954:
935:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
868:
867:
855:
854:
834:
831:Bernard Devlin
813:
812:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
779:
778:
728:
727:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
627:
620:
613:
612:
594:
593:
571:
570:
552:
551:
531:
522:
521:
520:
519:
501:
500:
499:
498:
478:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
435:
434:
419:
418:
406:
394:
393:
374:
373:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
237:
236:
235:
234:
213:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
185:
184:
168:
159:
158:
133:
132:
131:
130:
124:
112:
111:
94:
93:
88:
78:
76:
74:
71:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
982:
971:
968:
967:
965:
951:
946:
940:
936:
933:
929:
925:
924:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
905:... that the
904:
901:
900:
892:
888:
884:
883:
881:
877:
872:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
852:
848:
847:
842:
841:Gibraltarians
838:
835:
832:
828:
827:
822:
819:... that the
818:
815:
814:
810:
806:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
765:
761:
756:
755:
753:
748:
741:
740:
738:
734:
730:
729:
725:
721:
716:
711:
707:
706:
705:
702:
697:
691:
667:
662:
656:
655:
653:
648:
642:
641:
638:
633:
628:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
590:
585:
580:
575:
574:
573:
572:
568:
563:
556:
555:
554:
553:
548:
543:
536:
532:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
517:
512:
505:
504:
503:
502:
496:
491:
483:
479:
476:
473:
472:
471:
470:
456:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
275:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
232:
228:
224:
223:Devil's Tower
219:
214:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
182:
178:
173:
169:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
143:
139:
128:
125:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
109:
105:
104:
99:
98:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
79:
70:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
918:
902:
876:Demiurge1000
849:rather than
844:
836:
824:
816:
760:Demiurge1000
686:
577:
527:
474:
401:
361:
328:no consensus
327:
217:
209:
164:
134:
126:
117:
101:
85:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
928:Crisco 1492
920:the Devil's
917:instead of
846:the Devil's
771:Crisco 1492
733:Crisco 1492
720:Crisco 1492
366:BlueMoonset
332:BlueMoonset
62:BlueMoonset
945:Volunteer
913:should be
786:this thing
696:Volunteer
661:Volunteer
632:Volunteer
584:Volunteer
542:Volunteer
539:substance.
402:by himself
362:(pictured)
108:watchtower
911:Gibraltar
887:Prioryman
860:Prioryman
839:... that
790:Prioryman
605:Prioryman
451:Prioryman
411:Prioryman
297:Gatoclass
270:Prioryman
246:Gatoclass
218:as a road
177:Prioryman
100:... that
964:Category
915:Devlin's
851:Devlin's
475:Review 3
210:Review 2
165:Review 1
118:Reviewed
58:promoted
528:Review4
405:agenda.
138:ACP2011
127:Comment
82:Comment
809:WT:DYK
746:Silver
646:Silver
561:Silver
510:Silver
489:Silver
427:Drmies
386:Drmies
227:Drmies
950:Marek
751:seren
701:Marek
666:Marek
651:seren
637:Marek
589:Marek
566:seren
547:Marek
515:seren
494:seren
16:<
932:talk
903:ALT3
891:talk
880:talk
864:talk
837:ALT2
817:ALT1
794:talk
775:talk
764:talk
737:talk
724:talk
619:get.
609:talk
455:talk
431:talk
415:talk
390:talk
382:here
370:talk
336:talk
301:talk
274:talk
250:talk
231:talk
196:talk
192:Anne
181:talk
142:talk
86:view
66:talk
84:or
60:by
43:or
966::
923:?
120::
77:(
39:,
930:(
889:(
878:(
862:(
853:?
833:?
792:(
773:(
762:(
735:(
722:(
626:.
607:(
530::
477::
453:(
429:(
413:(
388:(
368:(
334:(
299:(
272:(
248:(
229:(
212::
194:(
179:(
167::
140:(
96:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
