2021 Dublin Bay South by-election has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 2, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm just looking at the format of UK by-election pages such as 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, 2019 Peterborough by-election, 2019 Newport West by-election, 2018 Lewisham East by-election, and 2018 West Tyrone by-election and see that they're much more expansive than most Irish ones. Presumably, a lot of that would be down to the fact they have much more editors to draw upon. At any rate, they have a fairly consistent format between each one, one that includes background and candidate selection sections. So I think, given the format used there, it wouldn't be unusual for Irish by-election pages to use a similar format. I understand that because Ireland has a much more politically varied system than the UK that going into too much detail about things such as party selections could lead to too much sprawl, however, I don't think it has to be between an absolute of no party selection discussion or too much party selection discussion. I think it's possible to create a happy medium by being concise. CeltBrowne ( talk) 13:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Deirdre Conroy's own blog posts describe her ski trip to Davos in 2013, and is referred to in the "On the Ditch" post. Removing this from the post removes key context. Khavakoz ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
So I'm looking at 2019 Dublin Fingal by-election for comparison and a month before the by-election was held, I can see from the history section that the infobox began listing all the confirmed candidates in alphabetical order and included their images where available. However, Template:Infobox election seems to only be able to display up to 9 candidates at a time, and so far there are 12 candidates. Thus, should we use Template:Infobox election and display the most probable candidates, or do we have to switch to using something like Template:Infobox legislative election, or is there some other way of displaying the candidates in an infobox that can be done? CeltBrowne ( talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at the dublin city returning officer website and in the " Bye-Election Press Release" it says the electorate for this constituency is 72,302. Should this be listed somewhere on the article? Thenoobgaming ( talk) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This really shouldn't have been a problem, but I've had a contribution reverted in which I:
Removed one opinion piece that makes a passing mention of the relevant text while the other article gives a comprehensive overview of the information, and another which has three mere relevant sentences stating that the party is "expected to select" the candidate while the other citation is a comprehensive overview of when she was selected.
This is to merely back up information about the candidate selection, which is repeated in near every article on the page.
I'm interested if any uninvolved editor agrees with this. I've made a comment on the user's talk page to inform them of this. Regards, Uses x ( leave me a message) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article has no image of Fine Gael candidate James Geoghegan. Since he was runner-up, that's an unfortunate gap.
I have asked at WP:Media copyright questions#Image_of_Dublin_City_Councillor_and_by-election_candidate whether we can use the image on the DCC website at https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=843. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Very good article. I have made some suggestions for tweaks. There is not much work to do before I'll be happy to pass this nomination. In the meantime I'm happy to discuss any of my suggestions/comments.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very nearly there. Please review my copyedit suggestions (section directly below this table). | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The table seems to be overly big - it's big on my widescreen screen, too large on my tablet. Works on phones only because it takes the full width (and then some). I've looked at other election tables and the pictures are smaller, could we do the same here to tighten it up?
The candidates section looks a bit piecemeal, i.e. short sentences. Could this be in a list instead? (I wouldn't fail the GA on this, just a suggestion for consideration). | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | To be honest, I haven't interrogated these line by line, and a review would be required for FA status. However this is mainly due to the fact that the referencing is excellent, with a huge amount of time and effort obviously put into this. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | As above. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No OR. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, no concerns. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All main aspects covered. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | But consider the Labour Party/Ivana Bacik section - undue weight to her own quotes vs. other candidates. Paraphrase perhaps?
Note sure we should include this from Bacik's victory speech "She added that Labour had emphasised the message around the issues the party championed, along with its core values. She added that this sends a message to the government that the mood among the electorate is for change" -- she would say that? Could we not get analysis from an independent source on what her victory meant? | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No concerns about stability. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Media appropriately tagged. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes. | |
7. Overall assessment. | As I noted after my original review, this article was very close to GA criteria. My suggestions and comments have been thoroughly addressed below and I am now very happy to pass this article. Well done to everyone involved. |
Many thanks to @ Mark83 for the prompt and thorough review. I will reply to the points in order, one at a time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The table seems to be overly bigrefers to the infobox at the top. So in this edit [2], I reduced the image size by 75% in each dimension. Does that help? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The candidates section looks a bit piecemeal, i.e. short sentences. Could this be in a list instead?. My understanding us that per MOS:USEPROSE, prose is preferred. I think that given the number of candidates and the sparsity of coverage of some of them, a little scrappiness in place is unavoidable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No idea what the relevance of Conroy's legal action for a fall on a skiing trip has to the by-election?Conroy became a controversial character after release of her blog comments about a tenant, and she was heavily scrutinised. The skiing injury drew attention because of its echoes of the Maria Bailey "swing-gate" episode, in which a politician had sought compensation for an injury in which they may have had a high degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, the source doesn't mention Bailey, so we can't draw the connection directly. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The Diary of a Dublin Landlady controversy could perhaps be summarised?. I see your point, but the landlady controversy was a huge issue, with a lot of media coverage. So I think that the presence of a whole para on it reflects its prominence in the sources, per WP:WEIGHT. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Does the article get bogged down in the Geoghegan dodging media issue; should we focus on two podcasts? [snip]. In this edit [6], I have italicised the podcast titles as suggested. I am unsure whether to keep any mention of them: my inclination is that since they may not be notable sources, they should be mentioned only if their exclusion is mentioned in relaible sources. I will investigate that later.
Geoghegan dodging media issuewas widely covered because it was the inverse of the usual publicity-seeking tactics of by-election candidates. This seat used to be natural FG territory, but its candidate seemed to be wary of showing his colours. Geoghegan's reticence and the controversies around Conroy came together to define the dynamics of the by-election as one in which both FF and FG were in retreat and forced into defensive positions in the face of a perception that they were entitled and out-of-touch ... so I think that both episodes deserve space to breathe, to give readers a sense of the nature of the campaign as it was reported. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
consider the Labour Party/Ivana Bacik section - undue weight to her own quotes vs. other candidates. Paraphrase perhaps?
Note sure we should include this from Bacik's victory speech [snip qote] .. Could we not get analysis from an independent source on what her victory meant?.
All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies. Moving them to the end of the sentenece would lose that specificity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Fianna Fáil councillors Deirdre Conroy and Claire O'Connor were reported...".
Why are the Labour and SF candidates in one paragraph when others are separate?-- I assume this refers to the §Candidateselection
"Throwing the kitchen sink" doesn't add anything. Candidates say all sorts of things; fluff like this isn't encyclopedic..
Should "Zero Covid" be capitalised? Should it be linked?
First lines of Fine Gael/James Geoghegan has run-on sentence. Same with the whole second paragraph.
"O'Connell referred to the message as a "hoax"" is repetition.
SF section - "Following the annoucement of the by-election," is redundant
I think it right that the article doesn't go into too much detail, but is there a wikilink for this issue? "During the campaign, Boylan received criticism from Fine Gael's by-election candidate James Geoghegan for her stance on the Special Criminal Court".
[[Special Criminal Court#Criticism|Special Criminal Court]]
. If you prefer a simple link to the article, I will change it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)"Fianna Fáil TD Barry Cowen send' out an internal e-mail [snip].
On the COVID precautions in voting centres - this could be tightened up slightly
That completes my responses to the review. Huge thanks to @ Mark83 for such thorough and fair-minded scrutiny, which I think has led to a lot of useful improvements. There are some points which need to be discussed further, and I look forward to that process: the gaps between us are small, and I am sure we can easily resolve them.
I have done my responses as separate bullet points, to facilitate threaded discussion on any outstanding issues on any individual point.
I several places I have identified a need for further research. I won't attempt that today, because I am too close to the article and need a bit of a break for doing that research. So I will do the research on Monday.
Mark, you may prefer to respond now to the points I have made so far, or to leave it all until I have done the extra research. I am fine with either approach, so please do as suits you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to pass this. And a very sincere thanks to @ BrownHairedGirl: for a prompt, constructive, methodical and thorough response to my comments. I know there are a few bits of extra research mentioned above, but these will just improve a GA, they aren't necessary to promote it.
And just to note a learning for me. I could have formatted this review better, i.e. 3b (1), to make responses easier. I'll do that for future reviews! Many thanks for the logical formatting of your replies. Mark83 ( talk) 12:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Sheila1988 ( talk), Iveagh Gardens ( talk), BrownHairedGirl ( talk), Spleodrach ( talk), CeltBrowne ( talk), and Uses x ( talk). Nominated by BrownHairedGirl ( talk) at 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: This might be too specific, but since the press release states "Voters will also be asked to bring their own pen or pencil to mark the ballot paper" could the hook be " ... that at the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, voters were asked to bring their own pen or pencil?". It's also written that way in the article itself ("Voters were also asked to bring their own pen or pencil to mark the ballot paper...") I do not see any other issues though, this is well-written and well-sourced. -- Riley1012 ( talk) 02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Promoting ALT1 to Prep 5, without the image (it would still be a great hook!) – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Sheila1988, Iveagh Gardens, Spleodrach, CeltBrowne, and Uses x: this hook is included in Template:Did you know/Queue/5, which will be on the front page at 00:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC), where it will remain for 12 hours.
That is likely to trigger some edits, so I think we should be alert tomorrow to check whether any such edits are constructive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
2021 Dublin Bay South by-election has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 2, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm just looking at the format of UK by-election pages such as 2019 Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, 2019 Peterborough by-election, 2019 Newport West by-election, 2018 Lewisham East by-election, and 2018 West Tyrone by-election and see that they're much more expansive than most Irish ones. Presumably, a lot of that would be down to the fact they have much more editors to draw upon. At any rate, they have a fairly consistent format between each one, one that includes background and candidate selection sections. So I think, given the format used there, it wouldn't be unusual for Irish by-election pages to use a similar format. I understand that because Ireland has a much more politically varied system than the UK that going into too much detail about things such as party selections could lead to too much sprawl, however, I don't think it has to be between an absolute of no party selection discussion or too much party selection discussion. I think it's possible to create a happy medium by being concise. CeltBrowne ( talk) 13:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Deirdre Conroy's own blog posts describe her ski trip to Davos in 2013, and is referred to in the "On the Ditch" post. Removing this from the post removes key context. Khavakoz ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
So I'm looking at 2019 Dublin Fingal by-election for comparison and a month before the by-election was held, I can see from the history section that the infobox began listing all the confirmed candidates in alphabetical order and included their images where available. However, Template:Infobox election seems to only be able to display up to 9 candidates at a time, and so far there are 12 candidates. Thus, should we use Template:Infobox election and display the most probable candidates, or do we have to switch to using something like Template:Infobox legislative election, or is there some other way of displaying the candidates in an infobox that can be done? CeltBrowne ( talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at the dublin city returning officer website and in the " Bye-Election Press Release" it says the electorate for this constituency is 72,302. Should this be listed somewhere on the article? Thenoobgaming ( talk) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This really shouldn't have been a problem, but I've had a contribution reverted in which I:
Removed one opinion piece that makes a passing mention of the relevant text while the other article gives a comprehensive overview of the information, and another which has three mere relevant sentences stating that the party is "expected to select" the candidate while the other citation is a comprehensive overview of when she was selected.
This is to merely back up information about the candidate selection, which is repeated in near every article on the page.
I'm interested if any uninvolved editor agrees with this. I've made a comment on the user's talk page to inform them of this. Regards, Uses x ( leave me a message) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article has no image of Fine Gael candidate James Geoghegan. Since he was runner-up, that's an unfortunate gap.
I have asked at WP:Media copyright questions#Image_of_Dublin_City_Councillor_and_by-election_candidate whether we can use the image on the DCC website at https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=843. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 12:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Very good article. I have made some suggestions for tweaks. There is not much work to do before I'll be happy to pass this nomination. In the meantime I'm happy to discuss any of my suggestions/comments.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very nearly there. Please review my copyedit suggestions (section directly below this table). | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The table seems to be overly big - it's big on my widescreen screen, too large on my tablet. Works on phones only because it takes the full width (and then some). I've looked at other election tables and the pictures are smaller, could we do the same here to tighten it up?
The candidates section looks a bit piecemeal, i.e. short sentences. Could this be in a list instead? (I wouldn't fail the GA on this, just a suggestion for consideration). | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | To be honest, I haven't interrogated these line by line, and a review would be required for FA status. However this is mainly due to the fact that the referencing is excellent, with a huge amount of time and effort obviously put into this. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | As above. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No OR. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, no concerns. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All main aspects covered. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | But consider the Labour Party/Ivana Bacik section - undue weight to her own quotes vs. other candidates. Paraphrase perhaps?
Note sure we should include this from Bacik's victory speech "She added that Labour had emphasised the message around the issues the party championed, along with its core values. She added that this sends a message to the government that the mood among the electorate is for change" -- she would say that? Could we not get analysis from an independent source on what her victory meant? | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No concerns about stability. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Media appropriately tagged. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes. | |
7. Overall assessment. | As I noted after my original review, this article was very close to GA criteria. My suggestions and comments have been thoroughly addressed below and I am now very happy to pass this article. Well done to everyone involved. |
Many thanks to @ Mark83 for the prompt and thorough review. I will reply to the points in order, one at a time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The table seems to be overly bigrefers to the infobox at the top. So in this edit [2], I reduced the image size by 75% in each dimension. Does that help? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The candidates section looks a bit piecemeal, i.e. short sentences. Could this be in a list instead?. My understanding us that per MOS:USEPROSE, prose is preferred. I think that given the number of candidates and the sparsity of coverage of some of them, a little scrappiness in place is unavoidable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No idea what the relevance of Conroy's legal action for a fall on a skiing trip has to the by-election?Conroy became a controversial character after release of her blog comments about a tenant, and she was heavily scrutinised. The skiing injury drew attention because of its echoes of the Maria Bailey "swing-gate" episode, in which a politician had sought compensation for an injury in which they may have had a high degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, the source doesn't mention Bailey, so we can't draw the connection directly. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The Diary of a Dublin Landlady controversy could perhaps be summarised?. I see your point, but the landlady controversy was a huge issue, with a lot of media coverage. So I think that the presence of a whole para on it reflects its prominence in the sources, per WP:WEIGHT. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Does the article get bogged down in the Geoghegan dodging media issue; should we focus on two podcasts? [snip]. In this edit [6], I have italicised the podcast titles as suggested. I am unsure whether to keep any mention of them: my inclination is that since they may not be notable sources, they should be mentioned only if their exclusion is mentioned in relaible sources. I will investigate that later.
Geoghegan dodging media issuewas widely covered because it was the inverse of the usual publicity-seeking tactics of by-election candidates. This seat used to be natural FG territory, but its candidate seemed to be wary of showing his colours. Geoghegan's reticence and the controversies around Conroy came together to define the dynamics of the by-election as one in which both FF and FG were in retreat and forced into defensive positions in the face of a perception that they were entitled and out-of-touch ... so I think that both episodes deserve space to breathe, to give readers a sense of the nature of the campaign as it was reported. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
consider the Labour Party/Ivana Bacik section - undue weight to her own quotes vs. other candidates. Paraphrase perhaps?
Note sure we should include this from Bacik's victory speech [snip qote] .. Could we not get analysis from an independent source on what her victory meant?.
All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies. Moving them to the end of the sentenece would lose that specificity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Fianna Fáil councillors Deirdre Conroy and Claire O'Connor were reported...".
Why are the Labour and SF candidates in one paragraph when others are separate?-- I assume this refers to the §Candidateselection
"Throwing the kitchen sink" doesn't add anything. Candidates say all sorts of things; fluff like this isn't encyclopedic..
Should "Zero Covid" be capitalised? Should it be linked?
First lines of Fine Gael/James Geoghegan has run-on sentence. Same with the whole second paragraph.
"O'Connell referred to the message as a "hoax"" is repetition.
SF section - "Following the annoucement of the by-election," is redundant
I think it right that the article doesn't go into too much detail, but is there a wikilink for this issue? "During the campaign, Boylan received criticism from Fine Gael's by-election candidate James Geoghegan for her stance on the Special Criminal Court".
[[Special Criminal Court#Criticism|Special Criminal Court]]
. If you prefer a simple link to the article, I will change it. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)"Fianna Fáil TD Barry Cowen send' out an internal e-mail [snip].
On the COVID precautions in voting centres - this could be tightened up slightly
That completes my responses to the review. Huge thanks to @ Mark83 for such thorough and fair-minded scrutiny, which I think has led to a lot of useful improvements. There are some points which need to be discussed further, and I look forward to that process: the gaps between us are small, and I am sure we can easily resolve them.
I have done my responses as separate bullet points, to facilitate threaded discussion on any outstanding issues on any individual point.
I several places I have identified a need for further research. I won't attempt that today, because I am too close to the article and need a bit of a break for doing that research. So I will do the research on Monday.
Mark, you may prefer to respond now to the points I have made so far, or to leave it all until I have done the extra research. I am fine with either approach, so please do as suits you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to pass this. And a very sincere thanks to @ BrownHairedGirl: for a prompt, constructive, methodical and thorough response to my comments. I know there are a few bits of extra research mentioned above, but these will just improve a GA, they aren't necessary to promote it.
And just to note a learning for me. I could have formatted this review better, i.e. 3b (1), to make responses easier. I'll do that for future reviews! Many thanks for the logical formatting of your replies. Mark83 ( talk) 12:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Sheila1988 ( talk), Iveagh Gardens ( talk), BrownHairedGirl ( talk), Spleodrach ( talk), CeltBrowne ( talk), and Uses x ( talk). Nominated by BrownHairedGirl ( talk) at 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: This might be too specific, but since the press release states "Voters will also be asked to bring their own pen or pencil to mark the ballot paper" could the hook be " ... that at the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, voters were asked to bring their own pen or pencil?". It's also written that way in the article itself ("Voters were also asked to bring their own pen or pencil to mark the ballot paper...") I do not see any other issues though, this is well-written and well-sourced. -- Riley1012 ( talk) 02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Promoting ALT1 to Prep 5, without the image (it would still be a great hook!) – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Sheila1988, Iveagh Gardens, Spleodrach, CeltBrowne, and Uses x: this hook is included in Template:Did you know/Queue/5, which will be on the front page at 00:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC), where it will remain for 12 hours.
That is likely to trigger some edits, so I think we should be alert tomorrow to check whether any such edits are constructive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)