- 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.
Other sources are also of this nature, as noted by Drmies below. Because the article requires significant work to meet the DYK standards, I am closing this as no consensus to promote. Cunard (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success.
Gibraltarpedia edit
- ... that Gibraltarpedia (logo pictured) is a collaborative project which aims to make Gibraltar the world's first Wikipedia city while creating a cultural bridge between the continents of Europe and Africa?
Created/expanded by Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Gibmetal77 (talk) at 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Date and length OK. The hook is 2 characters over the limit but that is due to the picture description. Would be better if the description was shortened. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that Gibraltarpedia (logo pictured) is a collaborative project aiming to make Gibraltar the world's first Wikipedia city while creating a cultural bridge between the continents of Europe and Africa? --Ipigott (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
1 character under now. Alt1 Good to Go. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some of the structure/phrasing used by this article is too close to that used by FN1. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
FN1? Please excuse my ignorance... --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Footnote 1, which is this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm having someone else address this issue as I'd like to refrain from editing the article due to a WP:COI. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Footnote 1, which is this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps that COI should also be extended to your reviewing Gibraltarpedia-related articles for DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs a re-review due to additions, with attention paid to the previous concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- When multiple sources have the same content, they don't count as different sources. It appears to me that [1] and [2] are the same, and [3] is an abbreviated version of the content. They should not be cited as if they are three separate sources. IMO, the government press release probably is the original item and the other two sources republished it -- if so, consolidate these into a single reference citation.
- I found the article a bit thin on informational content. It's mostly about the announcements of the project. Has there been any reporting more recently on progress in building Gibraltarpedia, problems encountered, or public reactions? --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'll refrain from editing due to the above-mentioned COI, but here are a few sources which came after the launch in case they may be of use:
- --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 22:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Anne. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 16:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In progress Anne (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I've deleted two references from July 28th that contained material found in other sources, and added five new references. I've beefed up the existing sections (except for the lead) and added a new section (Legacy). I'm sorry, try as I might, I was unable to find newspaper articles (or other reliable sources) for the month of August. Therefore, I wasn't able to include a section about the last two week's events. Please let me know whether we're headed in the right direction. Anne (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I apparently did have one August article, the Panorama article, the date of which I wasn't certain originally. Anne (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but whatever else happens, the second part of the hook is not acceptable. The "cultural bridge" is metaphorical to begin with, and stating as a fact that it has been built is decidedly non-neutral: it promotes the project by stating an aim as a fact. The silver lining is that the hook won't be so long anymore. There's something else: in my opinion, the sourcing isn't really up to par, esp. not if this frontpage article is to be representative of the best and newest stuff we have to offer (sorry, WMF): the sources are all very local and very internetty. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I'm not sure what standards are being utilized here. I just became a Wikipedia contributor this year, but I've observed that the standards for DYK appear to vary wildly. What does "very local and very internetty" mean exactly? I've been trying to help out by hunting down every "reliable" source that I could find. I've also been careful to format them correctly. However, I agree that the hook could be shortened:
ALT2 ... that Gibraltarpedia (logo pictured) is a collaborative project which aims to make Gibraltar the world's first Wikipedia city? Anne (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)- I would hope that those standards do not vary wildly: mine contain the imperative that articles that make it to the frontpage have decent sourcing. This, for instance, is "internetty"--it's an unsigned post on what appears to be a forum. This contains the kind of optimistic writing one finds in local newspapers that have an inherent interest in promoting the subject talking about--"As Gibraltar is home to a variety of communities who routinely speak English, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi and Hebrew - the research and writing of the hundreds of Wikipedia pages for Gibraltarpedia will be rooted in multilingualism", which is wishful thinking at best, the idea that all these linguistic communities will participate fully and equally in one (overwhelmingly English-language, see this) project. This reads like a press release. This and this are personnel entries on the website of the museum that supports the project. The entire section on "Training" should be cut; such information isn't very encyclopedic in the first place, and this and this are, again, examples from a local press announcing events and promoting them at the same time--there's nothing wrong with doing that, but there is something wrong with using such sources to establish the notability of a topic, in this case, training sessions. That applies to this as well, and the remark that there were plans for someone to return later is not of encyclopedic value--if the coming of these people was encyclopedically relevant in the first place. Yes, those UK Wikipedians get around, but that's not really important.
Now, don't get me wrong: I am not saying that the project shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia: it has generated some coverage and should pass the notability guidelines. But not all parts of the article should stand, and I am a bit wary of moving the goalposts because we ourselves are involved with it. In other words, the article needs to be trimmed to be less promotional and less interested in the people who work on and train for the project (no calendar information, please). As for the hook, it needs to be trimmed--not because it's too long, but because it is not neutral enough. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would hope that those standards do not vary wildly: mine contain the imperative that articles that make it to the frontpage have decent sourcing. This, for instance, is "internetty"--it's an unsigned post on what appears to be a forum. This contains the kind of optimistic writing one finds in local newspapers that have an inherent interest in promoting the subject talking about--"As Gibraltar is home to a variety of communities who routinely speak English, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi and Hebrew - the research and writing of the hundreds of Wikipedia pages for Gibraltarpedia will be rooted in multilingualism", which is wishful thinking at best, the idea that all these linguistic communities will participate fully and equally in one (overwhelmingly English-language, see this) project. This reads like a press release. This and this are personnel entries on the website of the museum that supports the project. The entire section on "Training" should be cut; such information isn't very encyclopedic in the first place, and this and this are, again, examples from a local press announcing events and promoting them at the same time--there's nothing wrong with doing that, but there is something wrong with using such sources to establish the notability of a topic, in this case, training sessions. That applies to this as well, and the remark that there were plans for someone to return later is not of encyclopedic value--if the coming of these people was encyclopedically relevant in the first place. Yes, those UK Wikipedians get around, but that's not really important.
- I'm sorry. I'm not sure what standards are being utilized here. I just became a Wikipedia contributor this year, but I've observed that the standards for DYK appear to vary wildly. What does "very local and very internetty" mean exactly? I've been trying to help out by hunting down every "reliable" source that I could find. I've also been careful to format them correctly. However, I agree that the hook could be shortened: