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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Gibmetal77 (talk). Self nominated at 09:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
Would be nice to have this appear on 4 July, the day of the election. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 22:46, 2 July 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
I don't see the hook mentioned in the article. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we are having lots of reviewers here. New enough, long enough. From my perspective, it's referenced to DYK requirements (the reviewer below doesn't think so, though). ALT1 is better. The article needs a bit of a tidy-up, though. Results in the infobox are incorrect, the winner needs to be added / shown, and 'Independent' needs to be dabbed. With regards to the election results table, I would regard it as good practice to use the same number of decimal points for all results. Whilst it's reported as per the source, it's a simple calculation and the rules are that they don't need to be sourced, but can be done by an editor (i.e. show 7.00% and 3.20%). One more query - is the independent really notable? If yes, then the redlink is ok. But note that just because he was a candidate in an election, he's not automatically notable (far from it). Schwede66 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I've updated the article following the result of the by-election and should have addressed all of the above. I believe the independent candidate is indeed notable. He has an interesting history as a political activist and was former president of the Gibraltar United Nations Association. I'm digging out some info on him for a separate article. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added Independent (politician) to the infobox. It's good to go now. There's nothing wrong with the redlink; I was just asking. Schwede66 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No COI-related issues. Will continue reviewing in a giffy...The first paragraph's second sentence in ″Background″ section is unreferenced. Please provide a reliable source for it. I'd tend to change the hook, as it looks like half of the candidates means a lot of people, when they were actually two out of four. Furthermore, it should be changed to past tense. I'm providing an alt below.--JetstreamerTalk 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I also changed the final word from "figures" to "leaders", since both Hassan and Isola were leaders (as is clear in the article), and at one point in a coalition government in the 1960s were Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister respectively (not in the article, but not needed). —BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I think this ALT1a reads best. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, Gibmetal 77. I also see that you added a reference to the sentence I pointed at above. Good to go.--JetstreamerTalk 21:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we are having lots of reviewers here. New enough, long enough. From my perspective, it's referenced to DYK requirements (the reviewer below doesn't think so, though). ALT1 is better. The article needs a bit of a tidy-up, though. Results in the infobox are incorrect, the winner needs to be added / shown, and 'Independent' needs to be dabbed. With regards to the election results table, I would regard it as good practice to use the same number of decimal points for all results. Whilst it's reported as per the source, it's a simple calculation and the rules are that they don't need to be sourced, but can be done by an editor (i.e. show 7.00% and 3.20%). One more query - is the independent really notable? If yes, then the redlink is ok. But note that just because he was a candidate in an election, he's not automatically notable (far from it). Schwede66 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added Independent (politician) to the infobox. It's good to go now. There's nothing wrong with the redlink; I was just asking. Schwede66 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No COI-related issues. 