Template:Did you know nominations/Ronnie Fraser

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 Allen3 ^talk 09:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronnie Fraser edit

(

)

~~... that in 1950 Ronnie Fraser stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament even though he was too young to vote?~~

Created by Gomach (talk), Graemp (talk). Nominated by Graemp (talk) at 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

The article is new: Y
The article is long enough: Y
The hook is interesting: Y
The hook is referenced: Y
The hook is below 200 characters: Y
A google search does not reveal any copyright violation: Y
The article follows most other important policies: Y
QPQ: Y
The hook does not contain any links (I guess we are talking about the Ronnie Fraser article, right?). Include at least a bolded one to the main article, and another one that may help. Besides, the content of the hook is included and referenced, but it should be explained a bit more: how is it that he was grown up to be candidate, but not enough to vote? Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've bold linked the Ronnie Fraser bit for you. For an explanation I recommend you visit the article talkpage. Graemp (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine, but some of that should be detailed in the article, or in another article and then linked. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

now linked Graemp (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't link to talk pages that way, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The too-young-but-not-too-young explanation needs to be in the article, not just the talk page, and it needs to be accessible to the general reader -- all this stuff about electoral registers has me (American) baffled. EEng (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (Oh wait, someone just said all that.)

Graemp, I'm afraid we're going to have to close this if you don't address the issues raised above. The "aged 21, but unable to vote himself", unless there's more to it than that, is not sufficient to support the hook. An inability to vote could mean anything from illness to failing to have himself placed on electoral register (which seems to the equivalent of a voting list or voting rolls) to being stranded out of town to (as you theorize) turning 21 too late to be added as a legitimate voter. Theorizing is not sufficient to support a hook; cited fact is what you need. You also cannot link to a talk page from a DYK hook, and there's certainly no point in linking to the nominated article twice in the same hook. I hope you adjust the article to support the hook, or you can always proposed an ALT hook that is supported by the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues raised above now addressed in article. Graemp (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Graemp. Refs 13 and 14 in the article are currently bare URLs, which is not acceptable for DYK. Please expand them. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That appears to have been sorted out yesterday. All good then? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler, but on reading the article I think I understand the age point now, and it seems to me the hook misstates it. Tell me if this is wrong: to vote in the 1950 election you not only needed to be old enough to vote, you had to have been old enough to vote on the date the registers were compiled, which I guess was February 1. Now, this guy was born February 3, 1929, so on Feb. 1 1950 he was still only 20 years old and couldn't get on the register. So by the time of the election he was 21 -- old enough to vote -- but he still couldn't vote. At the same time, being 21 at the time of the election qualified him to stand.

So the article's statement that he stood in an election when he was too young to vote isn't correct. If I'm right the hook could say something like "stood in an election in which he himself was ineligible to vote", but that leads to a different problem, which is that in England (at least historically) you could stand as an MP in a district in which you didn't yourself live, and I'm guessing that meant you were ineligible to vote for yourself in this case too, so it's not anything special. (Some Limey put me straight on this too, if necessary.) EEng (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have grasped most of this, not bad for a septic. Everything you say in the first para is right. (Logistically we are talking about a register that was being compiled between October and February, not on any specific date.)

What prevented him from voting was his age. The fact that the explanation was administrative rather than legal shouldn't make a difference. I would still argue that the hook is correct and succinct. "he stood in an election when he was too young to vote" should lead people into a fuller explanation that is given in the article. Your choice of words for lengthening the hook is not the best. If one wanted to lengthen it, I would suggest "he stood in an election when he was too young to be registered to vote". I think that's a bit pants, but it retains the age bit, whereas yours doesnt.

Your point about living where you are not standing is irrelevant unless the hook was "he stood in an election when he was too young to vote for himself" but it isn't. Graemp (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you just refer to me as a sewage disposal system? And what's this about my pants? How about this, which I think meets even my oh-so-exacting standards:

ALT1 ... that in 1950 Ronnie Fraser stood as a candidate for the UK Parliament, even though he was too young to vote in that election?

EEng (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is factually correct and emphasises the the right stuff, which it does, I'm easy and don't mind how snappy or long the hook is. Graemp (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check ALT1 hook and confirm that the previous issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:EEng's concerns seem to have been addressed. The ALT1 hook ref is offline but cited inline. All other criteria covered by Cambalachero's review. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)