Template:Did you know nominations/Princess Caroline's Battery
- 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 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Princess Caroline's Battery edit
( )
- ... that Princess Amelia's Battery, Princess Anne's Battery and Princess Caroline's Battery (pictured) in Gibraltar were named after Amelia, Anne and Caroline, the daughters of King George II?
Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 21:07, 16 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 are not allowed to do the reviews.
- Review 1:
Date and length OK. However I do have questions about the sources. From what I see, the sources supporting the claims in the hook are coming from the Gibraltar tourism website which I would call a COI. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't use a tourism website. All of my sources are reliable. Anne (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anne is correct. If you look at the website, the referenced page is one of a number about tourism but that's just one section of the website, which covers lots of other things as well (e.g. history). It's clearly not a tourism website, it's just a website that has some pages about tourism - rather a different proposition. As for invoking COI, that's not applicable in this context. The website clearly aims to promote Gibraltar but that doesn't make it an unreliable source, any more than www.barackobama.com's aim of promoting Obama's recent candidacy make it an unreliable source for that topic. The question is whether the source meets the requirements of WP:V, and I can't see any reason why it doesn't, particularly if it's the territory's official website - one would think that would be an exemplary source. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
On consideration of the second opinion, There appears no problem now. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Review 2:
- Each of these three articles is suitably sourced and is new enough and long enough to meet the DYK criteria. The articles are about military relics and I have no concern about them. If I had been nominating them I would have reworded the hook to include the image of the three princesses, but this nomination has been hanging around for too long already so I will just mention this in passing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)