Template:Did you know nominations/Lines of Contravallation of 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lines of Contravallation of Gibraltar[edit]

(

)

... that the Spanish town of La Línea de la Concepción was built on top of the ruins of an 18th century fortification built to stop Britain invading Spain?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mnemic neglect

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 22:43, 28 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

New enough, long enough, no copyright violations, and interesting. However, I am a bit concerned about the first para of the "Layout" section not having a footnote... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've resolved this issue. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the memo.. Buried underneath heaps of credits. Anyways, I think it's good to go. No obvious COI here. cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Prioryman (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Second review completed

seems good now that previous concerns were fixed. Good to go --Lester Foster (talk | talk) 04:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A reminder to promoters that both reviews must be completed—in this case, the first review is still pending while the second has been completed—and at least one review must "indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review." (This has not yet been done.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset (talk • contribs) 05:11, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

The first review has been completed and they also checked for COI, as noted by them. So this nomination should be good to go. Silver seren^C 21:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)