The following 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 Edge3 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

• ... that the lower level of Santiago de Compostela's Plaza de la Quintana is called the "Quintana de Mortos" (English:Quintana of the dead) because it was once a cemetery? Source: "The Plaza de la Quintana and its most outstanding buildings". ArtNatura. 2018-06-08. Retrieved 2023-06-07.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sleep in the NBA Template:Did you know nominations/Revival Vintage Bottle Shop

Created by Evrik (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Quintana Square; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment once approved, can this please be held until July 25? Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Hook is fine in length (barely), but perhaps consider deleting "English:" to make it even shorter, and since that is obvious

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

Attribution: Gerardo nuñez

• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Editor did the final qpq on a qpq begun by another editor. If that's fine with wp rules (I'm not clear), it's fine with me. The rules say "Subsequent reviews in a nomination may rely on their predecessors where their validity has not been disputed – however, only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ." Perhaps another editor can weigh in on this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:aa00:513a:c5bb:eadc:c6dd (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Someone please look at this. --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look today. If I have made no progress after 24 hours, please ping me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you've been in limbo for so long, evrik. You need another QPQ to fulfill the requirements. However, besides agreeing with the IP that you should drop the English translation, I think you are essentially there on this nom. Please see proposed ALT1:
    • ALT1: "...that the lower level of Santiago de Compostela's Plaza de la Quintana is called the Quintana de Mortos because it was once a cemetery?" [Note italicization.] ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
      • @Pbritti: I swapped in anew QPQ. ALt 1 is fine with me. --evrik ^(talk) 02:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Evrik: that second QPQ was not really completed. Please consider going back and reviewing that more thoroughly. Also, remember to sign your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti, the second QPQ was not completed because I had significantly contributed to the alternate hooks. That’s why I can’t finish that review. However, I did do the majority of the review. Now, you didn’t like my first QPQ because I finished somebody else’s review, maybe you can put two together? --evrik ^(talk) 13:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's unusual and I would prefer to see a review completed. However, I think you have contributed enough generally for it to count as a QPQ in sum. Image is ok. Not counting the inscription, the text of this article is remarkably short but does break the length threshold at ~1,900 characters. Sources are a bit worrying as they seem affiliated with commercial tour groups, but reflect at least accurate details and native NPOV. Approving. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti would you please move this to the holding area? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 00:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evrik: No, please see WP:DYK/Supplementary guidelines, §J1: do not promote a hook you wrote, or a hook for an article you created, nominated, or reviewed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: It's okay to move it from here: Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Articles_created/expanded_on_June_7 to here Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Special_occasion_holding_area. --evrik ^(talk) 15:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evrik: The hook states that the plaza is named "Quintana de Mortos" because it was a cemetery, but this causal relationship isn't mentioned in the article. I see that the Art Natura source states, "...because it is known that this space was, until 1780, a place of burials", but this information is not presented in the article. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Edge3: When you say, "this causal relationship isn't mentioned in the article," the article says, "...convert the medieval cemetery known as Quintana de Mortos into a public square." The article also sys, "from the "Quintana de Mortos" (English: Quintana of the dead) on the level below." Is that not enough?

Quintana Square. Fundacion Compostela Arquitectura. 2015-06-12. p. 10. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)

In any case, I clarified the sentence and added more references. --evrik ^(talk) 19:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evrik: The article doesn't explicitly state that the lower level was a cemetery, which would be the basis for its name "de Mortos". I think adding this explicitly into the article would be enough to support the proposed hook. Also, what is the source for "The square was built around 1611"? The sources say that the cemetary was removed in 1780. Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edge3: I made the clarifications. 1611 is cited here. The cemetery was moved a second time, that may be the later date. --evrik ^(talk) 21:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)