Talk:1866 Helston by-election

Did you know nomination

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at the 1866 Helston by-election, the two candidates received the same number of votes? Source: "Close of the Poll: Campbell ... 153, Brett ... 153." ("Helston election: The polling". The West Briton & Cornwall Advertiser. Truro, Cornwall. 4 May 1866. p. 4 – via Newspapers.com.)
  • Reviewed: Battle of Corycus

5x expanded by Harrias (talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1866 Helston by-election; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Harrias: Good article. Waiting on QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: I've just done a QPQ, but belatedly realised it was one of yours, which is possibly a conflict of interest. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are waiting on a third party to confirm that nothing shady involving approval-trading is afoot here, I've taken a look at the article and it looks fine to me. So don't believe Onegreatjoke's review is problematic.

As a passerby question, though: is it just me or are these vote counts insanely low, even given the smaller UK population of 1866? The rotten borough article says that such tiny constituencies were largely abolished in the 1830s... did the UK still have really restricted suffrage based on property holdings and this was normal, or is this a genuine case of a rotten borough that still existed? SnowFire (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The latter. It wasn't until the following year that the Reform Act 1867 was passed, significantly increasing the voting population of the United Kingdom over the subsequent few years. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 23:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Any interest in revisiting your review above? IMO, the QPQ criteria is fulfilled. If you'd rather hand the review off, I can approve myself, but don't really see the need since you already did the review. SnowFire (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1866 Helston by-election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The image is correctly licensed, and the sources are all reliable. Earwig shows no issues.

• "The by-election was brought about due to the declaration that": a bit long-winded. How about "The by-election was caused by the declaration that", or perhaps "The seat had became vacant when Adolphus Young's election"?
  • My prose can end up that way at times! Switched to your first suggestion, as it involved less grammatical tidying later in the sentence. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• It might be worth mentioning what the franchise qualification was at the time -- my eyebrows went up at the low number of votes, but a look at Reform Act 1832 tells me there would have been around 1,000 voters in an average constituency. This isn't necessary for GA, but it would be a nice addition for comprehensiveness if you were to take this to FAC.
  • If you're okay with it as is, I'm going to leave this for the time being. I agree that for a FAC a great deal more contextual background such as this would need adding, but right now I don't have access to suitable local sources, nor the inclination to wrangle too much with the more general political ones. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• "neither himself nor Major Grylls were presented": I think this should be "neither he nor", or you could make it "neither Young nor".
  • Yup, changed to the first suggestion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• 'Campbell presented himself as a contemporary of Young, with whom he said his "political opinions are in the main identical"'. Suggest 'Campbell said his "political opinions are in the main identical" to Young's, whom he described as a contemporary", to avoid the slightly clumsy "with whom" in the middle. I'm not really sure what point is being made by the "contemporary" comment, though; does it say more than that he shared Young's politics?
  • I was trying to convey his message that 'you voted Young in, so you should vote me in, because I'm like him'. Clumsily, as you point out. Removed the "contemporary" part for the time being. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• "He showed general support for the Liberal government, and specific support for the Reform Bill ...": suggest "He supported the Liberal government, and specifically supported the Reform Bill ...".
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• "booths were also set-up": I don't think you need the hyphen.
  • Indeed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That's everything from a read-through. Spotchecks:

• FN 13 cites "Objections immediately ensued from both sides. The Liberals complained that at 3:56 a voter, Martin, had been prevented from casting a vote for their candidate by the Conservatives "taking possession" of the hall. For their part, the Conservatives rejected this charge, and that by law the Mayor did not hold a casting vote. The town's deputy clerk then formally declared Campbell the elected member for Helston." Verified, but I see that the Mayor had already voted for Campbell, so his casting vote was in addition to his own vote. I think this would be an interesting detail to add.
  • Already included: "Rogers, who was a Liberal supporter and had already voted for Campbell in the poll.." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• FN 10 cites "Brett had previously stood as a Conservative candidate in the 1865 Rochdale by-election, which he lost by 646 votes to 496." Verified.
• FN 21 cites "and he once again vacated his seat". Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Cheers Mike, replies above. Not sure I'll ever manage to get this one to FA; my politics history probably isn't up to scratch, and I just don't have ready access to local sources. (I grew up in Helston, but moved away some 15 years ago.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your responses all look fine to me. Can't see anything else to complain about, so passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)