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) 23:08, 8 April 2013 (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 and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
First review completed
This is an excellent and fascinating article - let me know when you push for FLC - I'd be happy to review it. All that DYK stuff is fine too. Great work--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Second review completed
Length, date, hook (accepted offline sources AGF) and image checks out. Very nice. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Was about to move this into the fully approved section, until I realized that neither reviewer has indicated "whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review." Can one of the above reviewers please check for that and report back, so this can be eligible for the main page? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I can read neither Prioryman nor HJMitchell has any conflict of interest in regards to 17th century military campaigns in the Mediterranean. --Soman (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In case you still need it, I have no concerns on that score per Soman above. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, then, since conflict of interest isn't a concern, when either reviewer specifically comments on whether there are promotional concerns, this should be ready to roll. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I've done a third full review. Everything checks out, with offline sources accepted AGF. I don't really understand how an article about military sieges can be promotional, but for the sake of DYK requirements, I don't see any promotional language/tone etc in the article. It is quite neutral and I don't see any conflict of interest either. Personally, I'd say it's good enough to go to FLC. ChamalT•C 07:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)