Template:Did you know nominations/Neanderthals of Gibraltar

The following is an archived discussion of Neanderthals of Gibraltar's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

Neanderthals of Gibraltar[edit]

(

)

... that the Neanderthals of Gibraltar (male pictured) were among the first to be discovered and may have been among the last surviving members of their species?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Placospermum

Created by Prioryman (talk). Self nominated at 12:55, 27 April 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

Article meets core policies and guidelines of the DYK criteria, long enough, neutral, cites sources with inline citations and appears to be free of copyright violations and plagiarism. Hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article. Article should be ready for displaying on the main page, well done!

Oh, one complaint. This article on the Neanderthals of Gibraltar contains a hidden code which says "Come to Gibraltar, it's the bestest place on earth".♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, shame it's in Neanderthalese, which nobody's been able to understand for 24,000 years. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Second review completed

Solid sources (OUP and academic journals), obviously long enough and new enough, neutral, hook fact is cited in article, etc. Ready to go. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither review has properly addressed the specific requirement for Gibraltar hooks stated above: "at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review". (No, Dr. Blofeld's comment is not sufficient.) Can one of them please do so to complete the necessary steps outlined? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please reread my statement, where I addressed this. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I did, and I do not see where you addressed this. The word "neutral" doesn't cover COI or promotional, nor does "etc." or "Ready to go". If your perception of "conflict of interest" and "promotional" is not explicitly mentioned in the review, then as a promoter, I cannot read your mind and assume you have considered these things, as opposed to having done a standard review that does not need to consider these. Will you please be specific in your indication? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you thinking? In English, "promotional" means that you're trying to advocate something in some way, while "neutral" means that you're not doing that. Promotional things aren't neutral. Neutral things aren't promotional. Since you refuse to understand my original statement, and since you refuse to understand my response, I will say it slowly and simply. This is not promotional. This is okay. Have I been simple enough now? You also closed your eyes when you came to Blofeld's comment, which obviously mocks the idea of this specific article being promotional. Kindly read this page before holding up any more nominations. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Third review completed

Good to go on all DYK criteria. I am a little uncomfortable with the overreliance of the article on Finlayson but he is peer reviewed, widely cited, and a quick Scholar search does not immediately throw up anyone disputing his findings. I find it laughable that anyone could even think of suspecting this article might be promoting holidays in Gibralter or have some sort of pro-Gibralter POV. But just for the record, no it ain't. By the way, why is there a picture of Alan Sugar on the article. Spinning Spark 23:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)