Wikipedia

Talk:Angee Nicholas

Latest comment: 10 months ago by Bruxton in topic Did you know nomination
Learn more about this page

Did you know nomination

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago131 comments20 people in discussion
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 Bruxton talk 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 
Twenty of the new MPs

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
To reviewers: This may look daunting, but it's as simple as any other nomination. Pick one article from the box below, place a note in the large table in the column 'Review status' that you are reviewing that one, and leave the review comments at the bottom of this nomination form. Review one at a time. The hook fact needs to be reviewed once only.
  • Reviewed: see table below
  • Comment: It's New Zealand election time, which means mass DYK nomination time also! Last time we managed a 19-article hook (see Ibrahim Omer), this time we're aiming a little higher. Special votes are still being counted, however, so we will finalise the numbers in the hook as the numbers shake out over the next couple of weeks.

We will add a table below to mark off QPQs as we go (I can't figure out how to do that on this new submission template!). As we are still sorting out some of the stubs, may I suggest people don't review anything until it has a QPQ against it? We will also likely add an image. Cheers, DrThneed (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Created by DrThneed (talk), Schwede66 (talk), Idiosyncritic (talk), Pokelova (talk), Kiwichris (talk), Villian Factman (talk), MerrilyPutrid (talk), Moondragon21 (talk), and MW691 (talk). Nominated by DrThneed (talk) at 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. DrThneed and I worked on a nomination statement at the same time, not knowing that we were working in parallel. Let me post what I wrote; this also addresses the issue raised by Kiwichris. One of the things I did is organise a table with all new MPs plus sources for that; I come to 38 40 new MPs.Reply

We've had a general election in New Zealand and just like in 2011 and 2020, we'd like to make a mass-nomination for some of the new bios of incoming members of parliament. I don't think we made similar nominations after the 2014 and 2017 elections. The election results aren't final yet and some things will change. However, it'll no doubt take a wee while to look through these nominations and therefore, I propose that we take our time and wait for the final results to come in on 3 November, adjust the nomination to suit, and then run this on the main page. I shall also outline how the electoral system works, how that in turn changes the results once the final votes come in. That's important to understand for verifying the hook facts.

We use a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system in New Zealand. The overall composition of parliament is determined by the party vote, where party lists are used to achieve proportionality. The other way of getting into parliament is to win an electorate outright. Some electorate votes are incredibly close (there are seven electorates where the difference in vote between the preliminary winner and the second-placed candidate are below 500 votes, with something like 33,000 votes being cast per electorate and 20% of the vote not having been included yet in the preliminary results). Those electorate results are thus uncertain. And the overall composition may change, with the special votes generally favouring the left block. There has always been change for as long as we've had MMP between preliminary and final results, and that won't be any different this time either.

In terms of the hook facts, what will change is:

  • how many new MPs we get, and
  • who they will be

What we nominate now is based on the preliminary results. I'll indicate below whether it's a close race and the candidate isn't 100% confirmed. That could be because the electorate vote is close, or the candidate is the lowest-ranked one on the list who got in. The definition that we use for "new MP" is someone who has not been in parliament before (as opposed to someone who has but wasn't there during the last term).

At this point, we have 38 39 new MPs. That is referenced in four articles by The Spinoff:

I've prepared a couple of tables but as hard as I try, I can't get them to display here. Find those tables in my sandbox. Oh, and I've currently got 7 QPQ in credit; happy to chip them in. But let us first get that table right (30 vs 39 new MPs). Schwede66 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, slight brain fart. Yes, 38 40 new MPs, but 8 of those had articles already. That means that up to 31 32 bios are eligible. My table identifies "who is new in parliament" and "who is new to Wikipedia". Schwede66 03:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The final results were published on 3 November. As predicted, there were some changes. DrThneed and I have moved the table of new MPs to Google Docs and here's a link. Here is everything that matters:

  • Te Pāti Māori has now gained a second overhang seat, hence the size of the parliament is 122 seats instead of the 120 seats that is 'normal'
  • We now have 41 new MPs (up from 40), i.e. just over one-third of the parliament has turned over
  • There is no change to the number of new MPs who had a prior bio on Wikipedia; this remains at 8
  • That is, we now have 33 new MPs who are new to Wikipedia (up from 32).
  • We previously released 5 of those new MPs as individual nominations, i.e. there are now 28 bios in this mass-nomination (up from 27).
  • The National Party has lost 2 of the new MPs; Blair Cameron and Angee Nicholas had (narrowly) won their electorates based on preliminary results but the final results show that the Labour Party incumbents held those seats; both Cameron and Nicholas have been removed from this nomination
  • Te Pāti Māori candidates managed to win two more electorates from the Labour Party incumbents than the preliminary results had shown; Takutai Moana Kemp and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi are both new to parliament
  • The Greens won an additional list seat due to a higher party vote share; Kahurangi Carter is new to parliament
  • 2 new MPs out and 3 new MPs in is the change from preliminary to final results, hence the number of new MPs went up by 1; the 3 new MP bios got moved to main space today; we propose that these changes (2 losers out; 3 winners in) get reflected in the amended nomination.

I've thus amended the DYK header and DYK nompage links. ALT2 now provides the list of 28 new MPs that remain with this mass nomination, including the 3 new MPs who got confirmed today and whose bios got published today. I will update the 2023 New Zealand general election#New MPs section so that the hook fact can be verified.

And just in case you read something about 123 MPs and Nancy Lu being a new MP, well, that's something that is going to happen on 25 November. A by-election is scheduled, which will turn one of the existing list MPs—Andrew Bayly—into an electorate MP, which creates another overhand seat, and Nancy Lu will then become the replacement list MP. Lu will be the 42nd new MP of a parliament of then 123. But that's still three weeks away and by then, this nomination will hopefully be done and dusted. Schwede66 04:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a wee update:

  • Well, the three weeks mentioned in the last post have nearly come and gone. The by-election is happening tomorrow and there won't be any surprises; Nancy Lu will become the 123rd MP as a result of that exercise. That's old news.
  • The new news is that we are in the final stages of getting photos for all current National Party MPs signed off by the Commons permission team. That'll add quite a number of images to this exercise and if I've got my numbers right, we can make a collage with 20 photos. We have an editor on standby to produce that collage. Schwede66 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

As foreshadowed above, the "final act" of the general election has now happened and Nancy Lu has become the 42nd new MP in the process. Her article was published to mainspace on 25 November. The National Party photos have come through and have been verified by the Commons permission team. That means that we'll have 21 photos to go with the new bios and TheLoyalOrder has volunteered to produce a collage (yet to be done). I've written ALT3 reflecting the new photos and Lu, and struck ALT2 (which was outdated as not all the bios that have already run had been removed). Lastly, I've now fully documented the new MPs in 2023 New Zealand general election#New MPs, which serves as the hook fact. The electoral system that we use (mixed-member proportional representation) is not the most straightforward electoral system that one can think of, and if you have trouble following the description in the prose, maybe the Google Sheet (tab "changes with final results") makes things easier.

Great to see that the review process is well underway; DrThneed and I appreciate it! Schwede66 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Number Article Review status QPQ status QPQ by
0 hook fact   n/a n/a
1 Vanessa Weenink   Nunuk Nuraini DrThneed (talk)
2 Ryan Hamilton   Olga Onuch DrThneed (talk)
3 Suze Redmayne   Falnama DrThneed (talk)
4 Katie Nimon   Ni'isjoohl totem pole DrThneed
5 Tim Costley Individual nom Sarah Wentworth DrThneed
6 Catherine Wedd Individual nom Raymond Bushland DrThneed
7 Tom Rutherford Individual nom The Cedars, Sunninghill theleekycauldron
8 Dana Kirkpatrick   Samson and Hercules sculptures Schwede66
9 David MacLeod   Chapel of St. Roch, Vienna Schwede66
10 Grant McCallum   Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State Lightburst
11 James Meager   Brian Merrett Lightburst
12 Angee Nicholas On final results, Nicholas was not elected
12 Mike Butterick   Myriel Davies DrThneed
13 Miles Anderson   Mel Bartholomew DrThneed
14 Hamish Campbell Individual nom Skinpah Schwede66
15 Rima Nakhle   Smin Ye-Thin-Yan theleekycauldron
16 Carl Bates   Dalí Atomicus Schwede66
17 Greg Fleming   1936 Paraparaumu train wreck Schwede66
19 Blair Cameron On final results, Cameron was not elected
18 Jamie Arbuckle   Heather Phillips ‎theleekycauldron
19 Casey Costello   Yulia Tolopa theleekycauldron
20 Tanya Unkovich   Goody goody gum drops DrThneed
21 Reuben Davidson   Georgy Dokuchaev theleekycauldron
22 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel   Humpbacked limia Schwede66
23 Scott Willis   AK-47 (cannabis) theleekycauldron
24 Darleen Tana   Melissa Fumero theleekycauldron
25 Tākuta Ferris   Paddy Morgan theleekycauldron
26 Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke individual nom Lindsey Halligan DrThneed
28 Laura Trask   1917 Minsk City Duma election theleekycauldron
29 Cameron Luxton   Susanna and the Elders in art theleekycauldron
31 Carlos Cheung   Milverine Lightburst
32 Todd Stephenson   Die Kuranten Schwede66
33 Takutai Moana Kemp   Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume Lightburst
34 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi   Jod Gumbaz Schwede66
35 Kahurangi Carter   Julie Cliff DrThneed
42 Nancy Lu   Sarah Thomas (centenarian)

DrThneed

Extended content
General discussion

Comment: Perhaps this is WP:TOO SOON for some of these MPs-elecect? Vanessa Weenink has just an 83 vote lead prior to specials, Blair Cameron has just 54 and Angee Nicholas only 30. None of them are likely to be elected off the list either. Perhaps the DYK nomination could be put under the name of an MP more certain of being elected such as Tom Rutherford whose provisional majority is 13,182 votes? Kiwichris (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will say (while looking to review a couple of these soon) that we have a really bad shortage at DYKNA right now, and it would be better for the project's functioning to do some fresh reviews and use the banked credits later when we're not running at 40–50 approved hooks for weeks on end. Vaticidalprophet 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

And of those who are both new to parliament and new to Wikipedia, four of them have photos. My suggestion is that we produce a collage of those four, just as we produced a collage of the 9 in 2020 who we had photos for:

Two of the four articles are as yet short of 1500 bytes of readable prose, but we'll fix that. Would someone with the right software be so kind to produce a collage of those four? Schwede66 03:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

All four of those photo articles are DYK-ready by now. I've found another new MP; Rima Nakhle is listed in the source but I somehow skipped her when compiling the new MPs into a spreadsheet. Comparing my amended list (32 new MPs) against the 31 that have been nominated here, I see that Todd Stephenson is missing from the nomination. Schwede66 00:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  •   This is not a review but more of a comment. I do appreciate the hard work that you and many editors here have done to all of these articles. However, the DYK guidelines do say that hooks should be interesting to a broad audience, and more importantly, the hooks themselves should be about information about the subject that can be perceived as being unusual or interesting by general audiences. That is, the hook tells something about them that others might find interesting. I'm not really sure if a hook that says that 30+ people from such-and-such party were elected to Parliament meets the spirit of the criterion.
I understand the idea behind the hook, about wanting to break last election's records. I really do. I also appreciate the efforts being done here and I think it's great that all these articles have been written. However, I wonder if this is a case where quality would be better than quantity. As in, instead of having all these names being featured at once on DYK, which is cool but perhaps going against the spirit of the guidelines, it might be better to focus on just a few of these MPs and come up with really interesting or really catchy individual hooks about them.
Perhaps it's also a case of not wanting systemic bias. After all, readers may wonder "why does New Zealand get this treatment but not other countries? What makes New Zealand so special to warrant such a hook? How about a multi-person hook about the US? The UK? Australia? India? Nigeria? etc."
Of course, this is just my opinion, and if consensus states that this hook can go on in its current form, perhaps under WP:IAR, I won't get in the way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
So, to repeat my WT:DYK take in a centralized spot – I think the "quarter new" and "x many parties" variants are workable. I am skeptical about mass-hooks by default, but when the work to arrange one is already so far into completion, I think it's for the better to let it be the case. I also note we have had a lot of New Zealand hooks lately, and a single hook for thirty NZ politicians is going to be markedly less inclined to contribute to visible overrepresentation than tons of hooks for individual NZ politicians (which introduces other issues, like the fact you can't really put multiple politicians from the same country in one set). I am strongly inclined to recommend that next election runs individual hooks, but we're already here. I'm willing to review a handful of these, though emphatically not the whole set of thirty (there's more than enough people at DYK who could use the QPQ credits, anyway). Vaticidalprophet 08:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I will also say, though, that all the past-length-minimum articles I've looked at have a viable individual hook (not always the best hook ever that'd tear up the charts, but something viable). It's possible to just split them out in this existing nomination with their existing QPQs, though this does cause some trickiness with PSHAW when promoting (you have to do it manually, so far as I can tell). Vaticidalprophet 09:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
One concern I do have is that the combined hook may have so many names involved that not all of them will benefit from Main Page featuring since I doubt our readers will all want to click on every single name and learn about them, and there's a concern that the featuring may backfire and cause each individual article to get less readership than what would normally be expected under a multi-hook. This could be an argument in favor of the best options being split off into separate individual hooks, with perhaps only the "not-so viable" ones being part of a multi-hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
DrThneed, Schwede66, I've been thinking about this. This is just playing with ideas, but I agree with NLH, more or less, that megahooks of this sort are tricky. I've also read all the articles in the set, and noticed the 1500+ character ones that are reasonably comfortably winners all have viable standalone hooks, some good enough it'd really be a shame to put them in a multi. Given we already have QPQs sorted for almost all that subset, it is possible to just break them out within this nomination, if that's a thing there's any enthusiasm for. There's obviously a lot of articles still to work on, and there might be good hooks that emerge for those. Not all these hooks are the-best-ever, but they're all at least "minimum viable hooks" and some are genuinely great.

These are absolutely just playing-with-ideas, not at all a hard suggestion, not at all a statement that a multihook isn't viable. But, did you know...

 
 
 
  • ... that New Zealand politician Reuben Davidson (pictured) is a former children's television producer?
  • ... that Scott Willis (pictured) helped build New Zealand's first climate-safe house?
  • ... that the Māori environmental scientist Darleen Tana (pictured) speaks Flemish and French?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Tom Rutherford is a firefighter and hockey umpire?
  • ... that when he was in the Royal New Zealand Air Force, future politician Tim Costley starred in a YouTube video that joked about having sex with sheep?
  • ... that despite being active in politics, Laura Trask has almost no social media presence?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Hamish Campbell is a cancer researcher and runs a flower delivery business?
  • ... that Jamie Arbuckle started a farmer's market after his application for a different market was rejected under suspicions he didn't grow his own asparagus?
  • ... that when she was elected to the New Zealand parliament, Catherine Wedd defeated her former coworker at a marketing company?
  • ... that Ryan Hamilton was the only member of the Hamilton City Council to vote against requiring a COVID-19 vaccination certificate to enter council facilities?
  • ... that Suze Redmayne is the first female Member of Parliament for the New Zealand electorate of Rangitīkei?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Rima Nakhle campaigned for setting up military academies for youth offenders?
  • ... that Tākuta Ferris's win in the 2023 New Zealand general election was one of that election's biggest surprises?
  • ... that Casey Costello was the first woman to be vice president of the New Zealand Police Association?
  • ... that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, aged 21, is the youngest Member of Parliament in New Zealand since 1853?
  • ... that New Zealand politician Cameron Luxton compared a member of the House of Representatives to Marie Antoinette?

Campbell needs a QPQ, and Costley's isn't quite in the article yet (it's in the source, but the article is very unclear on what the video was). Otherwise, they're all eligible hooks. Some of them – Costley, Campbell, Maipi-Clarke, Luxton, Arbuckle, probably Davidson/Rutherford/Trask – are good enough it really stands out to me that we aren't running them. I'm not saying the multihook doesn't work, but, playing around with ideas, I think there are a lot of paths forward both running a multihook and running individual hooks, and they have their pros and cons. Vaticidalprophet 11:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't speak for everyone in the team, but I am not interested in breaking up this hook into individual noms. Vaticidalprophet you've identified some great potential hooks above, but for me the purpose of being involved in the multihook was the fun of it, the fact that it is by virtue of its size something out of the ordinary, and that it involves a whole bunch of editors in both prepping and moving the bios on election night and then getting them ready for DYK. The last NZ election multihook was only my seond ever DYK nomination, and it was somewhat of a baptism of fire. But it was really fun, and the experience of prepping the bios and reviewing and working together to sort out problems was positive and I stayed involved in DYK afterwards when I otherwise might not have. I don't see nominating 30 individual politician bios as fun in the same way, and I suspect it would be less likely to get interest from other NZ editors not already involved in DYK. Another aspect that puts me off is because to avoid having more than one in a set they'd end up so spread out that I'd be having to think about politican bios for weeks and weeks. No thanks! DrThneed (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I understand the eagerness to do the multihook, but the way I see it, there are a few issues with the multihook, some brought up by me and others by Vaticidalprophet:
  1. According to the DYK criteria, hooks need to be perceived as unusual or interesting to people without special knowledge. That means, a hook should encourage readers to read more about a subject: that's why they're called hooks. The currently written hook, assuming it was just a single article hook that said "Did you know that [person] was elected to the New Zealand Parliament?", isn't really going to fly by DYK standards.
  2. About a year or two ago, there was an RfC regarding the interest criterion for DYK. The result was a tightening of the rules, so unlike before where hooks had to be "interesting to a broad audience", a criterion that almost no one could agree on its meaning, now hooks need to basically appeal to people without specialist knowledge. A hook including so many bolded links might technically be considered interesting to many, but it arguably violates the spirit of the criterion, which was intended to make sure that hooks about subjects highlight something about them that would interest even non-specialists.
  3. There's a concern that having so many names in a hook might backfire in terms of readership. That is, there are so many names involved that readers may be impressed but less willing to actually look up every name in the hook. Sure, that doesn't mean they need to read everything, but that's a possibility if reader resources are being spread thin. Basically, the more names in the hook, the less that each individual article may actually be read by readers.
  4. Some of the proposals given above are actually really good in their own right and would probably do bonkers or at least do pretty well as standalone hooks. I think it would be a shame to put them to waste since I think just having a multihook where the names get a passing mention rather than their own hooks where they are a star would not give them and their careers justice.
As for the concern about spreading out, that shouldn't be much of an issue. The hooks are already provided above, you don't have to come up with your own. We're already having a biography shortage already and hooks running a month or more after approval isn't uncommon, so it's not necessarily a problem.
There could also perhaps be some form of compromise. Perhaps only the "best of the best" of the MP hooks could be split off into their own hooks, while the others could be left in the multihook. The tricky part is that a lot of Vaticidalprophet's proposals are actually pretty good and it would be a shame to leave any of them out. I'm not entirely against multihooks in general, and I think under the right circumstances they can work, but I think the current proposal goes against the spirit of the current guidelines, particularly the ones about interest to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Echoing my comments at WT:DYK here so everything is in one place, I believe the best course of action would be to try and tweak the multihook so it meets the interesting criterion. I brought up the possibility that the new MPS make up over a quarter of parliament, and that all six parties have new MPs. That said, if there is a desire to pull out individual MPs from this list into their own nomination, and if there is someone who actually wants to undertake that effort themselves, then Narutolovehinata5's suggestion should work too. I don't think there is a need to fear weeks of thinking about politicians if they are split off! Generally once approved DYKs sail off into the wind, you can let them live their lives.
While individual splits could be considered now, the final shape of the multi-hook can only take place once the real-life dust settles. Perhaps the length of vote counting is another thing that might hook people! CMD (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That might make a good compromise: some of the best of the best could have their own hooks, while the rest could remain included in a multi-hook if desired. It could be the best of both worlds, allowing those with very interesting stories to shine in their own right, while also avoiding the concerns about "flooding" DYK with New Zealand politicians by keeping some form of a multihook around and acknowledging the work and desires of those involved in wanting a multihook. For example, I'm really partial to VP's proposed hooks for Davidson Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd and think they might do well on their own, while the others have okay-to-decent hooks but may not be as big of a loss if they were grouped under a multihook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it could be a good compromise to pull out a few of the more interesting ones and run the rest as a multihook, if the community is agreeable. I am certainly open to rephrasing the multihook itself too, which as noted by Chipmunkdavis is likelier to be easier once the full count has been completed, and there will be new sources detailing all the new MPs and noting things like what proportion of the new parliament they make up etc.
Narutolovehinata5 suggested Davidson, Rutherford, Costley, Campbell, and Wedd as possible stand-alones. My view would be that being a volunteer firefighter/umpire isn't so unusual (at least here) and also that four out of five of those are National Party MPs, so perhaps replacing Rutherford with either Scott Willis or Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would be better? DrThneed (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm also open to running say a handful of articles standalone if that's what's needed to get the multi-hook over the line. I suggest, however, that the multi-hook would go well with a collage of new MPs. We have exactly four images, and the only good collage (that I can think of) is a 2x2 arrangement. Therefore, the four pictured articles cannot be standalone DYK nominations; that means that Scott Willis is out. Schwede66 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oops sorry Schwede66 I forgot about our paucity of photos this year (not for want of trying). So yes Willis needs to stay in the multihook. Hana would still be a good option to pull out though, being the youngest in 170 years (and female and Māori) is pretty cool! DrThneed (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
And only the second-youngest ever because the youngest cheated! James Stuart-Wortley got his solicitor to confirm that he was 21 and thus eligible to be elected. It only came out later that they had lied, and he was 20 years and 7 months at the time of the election, thus not eligible to even stand under the rules back then. This isn't even stated in Stuart-Wortley's bio. Schwede66 23:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the case of the firefighter thing, Wikipedia has a broad, global audience, so they might not even know that New Zealand politicians often have or had side gigs, so regardless of how common it is they might still find it unusual. I don't necessarily think the party issue is going to be a problem because what happened was proposing based on hooks rather than party, and so if one party ends up being more represented, it wasn't on purpose and was more of a side-effect of the overall effort rather than an intentional effort to promote one party over the other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Volunteer firefighting is just a common thing in rural communities, as without it there is no fire service. And it isn't a sidegig of an MP as such, there's no way he would be able to keep that up now he's in Parliament and has to be in Wellington! But regardless, if we can build a hook for Hana around her being the youngest legal/non-lying NZ MP ever (sources permitting) that would have to be more interesting, surely? DrThneed (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
My view is that things are interesting either because of their content or their style. Here, like with Template:Did you know nominations/That, playing with the expected form of a hook is interesting. WP:DYKINT places no restriction on interestingness to content. Urve (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I second this sentiment. I rarely click through DYKs on the main page, but seeing the sea of blue with last year's multihook definitely sent me down a rabbit hole of NZ politics. I think this is an excellent tradition and drives participation that otherwise may not happen. Unique novelties like this are what drive editor retention and recruitment, in my opinion. However, I do think that a formal, centralized discussion on the topic could be fruitful in the future. Fritzmann (message me) 21:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In any case, there's been some discussion at WT:DYK saying that if the multihook is to be accepted (and right now, consensus on whether to go ahead with it is ongoing), then it would probably need to be revised so that it would be interesting in its own right. That is, ALT0 might not be possible, but a different formulation like focusing on how at least a quarter of the MPs are new, might be possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Narutolovehinata5, please see ALT1 above. Schwede66 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That could work if consensus determines that the multihook can go ahead, though personally I'd still prefer the compromise option. Though I suppose discussion can continue on that front as well: which articles to go individual and which ones will remain in the multihook. The thing that urgently needs to be discussed right now, I think, is to be if the multihook should go ahead in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Are we going with this compromise (running up to say 5 articles standalone; the rest as a multi-hook)? I'm asking because I managed to source what happened in 1853. This would offer us the following standalone hook, which I reckon is pretty cool: Schwede66 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
ALT(Maipi-Clarke) ... that if James Stuart-Wortley had not falsified his age for the 1853 general election, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke would now be New Zealand's youngest-ever member of parliament?
That sounds good, but I'd like to hear DrThneed's thought on what articles she is willing to allow being standalone hooks before we discuss which hooks will be standalone and which ones will remain in the multihook. There doesn't seem to be much consensus really in favor or against the multihook running at all, but given the lack of opposition I'd say that that's probably a sign of allowing at least some kind of multihook to push through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think pulling out five individuals is a reasonable compromise, and one that both Schwede66 and I are happy with - it still leaves us with a decent-size multihook, but allows a few of the more interesting bios to shine, without overwhelming DYK sets with NZ politicians. My opinion is that the best individual hooks are Davidson, Costley, Campbell, Wedd, and Schwede's Maipi-Clarke hook above. If that seems like a good path forward, then some suggestions on the mechanics of it would be appreciated! Would I just make fresh nominations for the individual articles, with a reference back to the multihook as being the actual date of nomination? DrThneed (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the mechanics, I would think:
  • strike those articles from this nomination
  • remove the relevant credits
  • make individual nominations for those bios, with a link back to here to demonstrate that we nominated in time
  • move the QPQs across as they stand

That should cover it all, I think. Unless somebody can think of other aspects. Just one issue – we can't use Reuben Davidson as a standalone nomination as he's one of the four bios where we have a photo. Schwede66 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh for heavens sakes, that's the second time I've put one with an image in the list! Gah. Alright, so Costley, Campbell, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and one other...I note Narutolovehinata5 liked Rutherford, I think Arbuckle or Trask might be better but no strong feelings, Vaticidalprophet you came up with these individual hooks, do you have a preference for a fifth? DrThneed (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think Trask can probably stay in the multihook. The hook is just fine but it's not a standout hook like the other proposals. Is five the agreed number, or can the number change further? I think five is a minimum but perhaps as many as seven could be possible depending on if there are any additional standouts. Though if there's just a desire for a "best-of-the-best", five is fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I enjoy both Arbuckle and Trask's hook and would prefer to see both of them if possible. (I think Rutherford is fairly remarkable to people not from rural NZ. Volunteer firefighters are common enough in rural Aus too, but most people here aren't rural, so it's a distant concept even to me.) Vaticidalprophet 00:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No I don't think either Schwede66 or I want to take out more than 5 (to avoid repetition, that's for all the reasons given above in defence of the multihook! Plus the fact that people have donated QPQs and put effort into expanding bios for a multihook, which they wouldn't necessarily do for individual ones.). So we are discussing which ones rather than how many. Seeing as you're both keen on Rutherford that looks like Campbell, Costley, Wedd, Maipi-Clarke and Rutherford to me. Schwede66 do you want to confirm you're happy with that? DrThneed (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with 5 individual nominations but wouldn't want to see any more than that. Like DrThneed, I'm rather lukewarm about the volunteer firefighter but if that spins the wheels of people outside of Oceania, then so be it. Any hook with "sex" in it will do famously well, and "sex with sheep" will go off the scale, so that's all good. I predict that 80% of Australian readers will click on that one. DrThneed, before we do individual nominations, can we have a look at credits for those together? Schwede66 04:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's fair. With regards to the five individual hooks, are you fine with Vaticidalprophet's proposals or do you have any other ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I really don't mind beyond none of the four photo bios, and I would really like to feature Maipi-Clarke. Schwede66 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the question was more are we happy with the hooks as proposed or do we have other ideas? I think it might be easiest if I split them and then anyone with alternative hooks to suggest can discuss them on the individual noms. (Will split tomorrow, am currently working through to make sure I have the page creation/contribution credits accurate for the individuals and the remaining multihook). DrThneed (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maipi-Clarke has now been nominated individually. I've struck things where appropriate, removed her from ALT1, and removed credits. Schwede66 12:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

DrThneed has nominated the other four individual nominations:

We should thus be all good. Let the review of the remaining bios start. Thanks to all who have commented and moved this along. Schwede66 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reviews
edit
0 Hook fact
  • Schwede66 I am still concerned. I'm checking the citation for National, and it states that 23 new MPs were elected. Looking closer, at least two (Nicholas + Cameron) were projected winners that were ultimately not elected, and another two served in parliament before (Bidois + Garcia). That would come out to 19 (at most) elected National MPs that have never served in parliament before, but the article currently states that there are 21. Bremps... 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Bremps, have you checked out the Google Sheet? That lists them all, plus the ones that the original Spinoff article counts as new MPs that were actually returning. And what happened when the final results came out isn't that straightforward to follow; again, the spreadsheet makes much clearer what's going on. Schwede66 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Schwede66: Looking at promoting for prep 3 - Thursday. My question: Is the image accurate to use with the hook? It looks like we have a pic of 20 but that is not all of the people in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bruxton, we have in fact 21 photos but ended up making a 4x5 grid, hence Kahurangi Carter misses out being pictured. For the others, we don't have photos. Hence, the hook as written is correct. BTW, it's a very high number of photos; I got lucky that I managed to talk the National Party into releasing candidate photos. You wouldn't know how many emails were exchanged... Schwede66 20:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Schwede66: so we are ok publishing the image? The caption seems to say there were 20 new MPs but there are more, so maybe we can change the caption to reflect that the image is not all of the new MPs. Like "20 of the new MPs". It is slightly confusing to me. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see what you mean, Bruxton. I've changed the caption from "Twenty new MPs for 2023" to "Twenty of the new MPs". That conveys that 20 isn't all of them, and the year is no longer that relevant given that it's now 2024. And regarding the number of hooks in that set, I suggest start with this one and three others and we'll then check for main page balance. I'll put something into a sandbox once the hook set is assembled. Schwede66 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
1 Vanessa Weenink
Review:
  • New enough: created on the 14th of October, nominated on the 17th
  • Surpasses 1,500 characters of prose
  • Action needed: Spot check reveals okay sourcing, but citation 6 (electoral commission) is broken. Archived edition seems to not mention the flip being the first time in 20 years.
  • Earwig spits out "Violation Unlikely" with an impressive 2.0%
  • Article is presentable
  • No images, so no copyright issues there
  • User:DrThneed seems to have donated a QPQ
  • No other issues
Fix the concern about the dead link and the 20-year-flip and we're good to go on this one. Bremps... 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've attended to those issues. Schwede66 23:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Pass Bremps... 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
2 Ryan Hamilton
Approved Recently created, long enough, well referenced, no obvious close paraphrasing, QPQ provided. There's a single bare URL in the citations but this can be easily fixed. 97198 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review 97198, have fixed the bare URL. DrThneed (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
3 Suze Redmayne
Review:
  • Just over 1,600 characters of prose
  • Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
  • Action needed: Spotcheck seems to check out. However, citation 7 (NZ Herald) states that "She has also served as a trustee of the Whanganui Community Foundation and is a trustee of Sport Whanganui." That suggests she may not be serving as a trustee for the first group anymore, so the tense will need to be changed.
  • "Violation Unlikely", 9.9%
  • Article is presentable (fine for display on main page)
  • No images, so no copyright issues on that front
  • DrThneed seems to have donated this
  • No other issues
Fix the issue above and we're good. Bremps... 21:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review Bremps, have changed it to 'is or has been' a trustee. DrThneed (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Great, I can pass this   Bremps... 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
4 Katie Nimon
Review:
  • Squeaks over the 1,500 characters prose requirement
  • Created on the 14th, nominated on the 17th
  • Citations seem fine. Her education is cited to her campaign website (citation 3), but I can let it slide.
  • "Violation Unlikely" at 7.4%
  • Article is presentable
  • No images, so no copyright concerns on that front
  • DrThneed donated this QPQ
  • No other issues
This is a pass   Bremps... 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
8 Dana Kirkpatrick
  • Moved to mainspace on 14 October. Citations fine. The quote is a bit unnecessary, but it doesn't count towards readable prose size so probably fine. Image tagged adequately. Article is neutral and well-written—hook fact, that she won the election, is cited in the article and verifiable from the citation. Earwig 2.9%, so no concern. QPQ done. No other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
9 David MacLeod

 . Approved. New enough at time of nomination, having been moved to mainspace on 14 October. Meets length requirements. Sources check out; there's some use of Scoop press releases but only for non-contentious facts. Article is neutral and well-written, I've made a couple of minor fixes. No concerns from Earwig check (6.5%). The "hook" in this case is his election to Parliament which is definitely cited in the article and is approved above. I assume the picture needs to be reviewed; it looks good and appropriately licensed. Tick for QPQ by Schwede66. Overall, this one is good to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

10 Grant McCallum

 . Approved. New enough at time of nomination, having been moved to mainspace on 14 October. Meets length requirements. Each fact in the article is sourced. Article is neutral and reads fine; "at least two children" reads a bit oddly but that's what we know from the source. No concerns from Earwig check (only thing picked up is a direct quote by McCallum). Hook separately approved. Picture is good and appropriately licensed. QPQ by Lightburst, tick. Another one that is good to go. Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

11 James Meager

NOTE: The following is copied from Template:Did you know nominations/James Meager; it cannot be transcluded because that separate nomination is being closed in favor of this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Starting review... — Knightoftheswords 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   The article would be eligible for DYK IMO, however, a single thing stands out that destroys the nom; this article was created in October and last made in November, so unfortunately I am going to fail this. Having since discovered that this is apart of a broader process, I am reversing my decision and suggesting a pass. — Knightoftheswords 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC) — Knightoftheswords 13:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pity, we could have pulled an epic move and did it as an image hook. Bremps... 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wait, it was actually nominated with a few other articles in mid-October here, shortly after creation. It was only spun out of the larger hook recently. Knightoftheswords281 Bremps... 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, we are not removing this from the mass nomination. Bremps, please transfer your review to the mass nomination. Schwede66 19:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, it's actually Knightoftheswords281 who reviewed this; please transfer your review to Template:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink. Schwede66 19:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
12 Mike Butterick
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

13 Miles Anderson
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

15 Rima Nakhle
Shivashree, you marked off Rima Nakhle as approved in the table above but you did not provide a rationale here why the bio is meeting the DYK requirements. Could you please attend to that? Schwede66 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Whilst Shivashree marked the article as reviewed, there is no breakdown here how the article meets the requirement as is stipulated by the DYK review rules. As the reviewer hasn't responded to the request of providing the detail, someone else will need to review this. Schwede66 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Article length: Article is not expanded x5 in the past 10 days. The article had 1026 characters in September 2021. Present length is 2171 characters.
It is biography of a living person, with significant notability as Member of Parliament. Article is well cited. The hook is long with too many names, but that should be okay. GD (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Shivashree. Two things. Regarding the article, you need to look at its history. It was moved into mainspace on 14 October and nominated for DYK on 17 October, i.e. it is new to mainspace. Regarding your signature, I have struck your time stamp as it shows you having made this comment 5 days ago, when in fact you commented a few minutes prior to my reply. Schwede66 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. I didn't check the move log. Regarding the signature, I had posted my review on Template:Did you know nominations/Rima Nakhle and just copy-pasted from there. I see it doesn't work that way.
 The article qualifies on newness, notability, verifiable. GD (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
16 Carl Bates
Almost Just long enough, reads neutrally. But careful about quotations: "people in the region ..." is a journalist's words, not Bates's, and should be paraphrased. Amazon likely isn't necessary to cite in either the body or list of books (which can cite themselves). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your review, Hameltion. I concur with your concerns and think that I've addressed all those issues. Please have another look and say if I've overlooked something / if there's room for further improvement. Schwede66 08:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Approved OK. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
17 Greg Fleming
Almost Good except a bit more care needed around some topics. Suggest more immediately saying he disavowed his past views on civil unions and supports them now. Also the mention of "conversion therapy" is sourced entirely to an opinion piece, which makes me question its WP:DUEness. And in the other direction, Venn Foundation would benefit from a non-primary description. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll look into this. The first issue about conversion therapy, I shall state that Andrea Vance (the author of the opinion piece) is a senior journalist and you wouldn't expect anything "undue" from her. That said, there are in fact two sources for his (historic) views on conversion therapy, and the second one says exactly the same thing that Vance stated in her piece. Hence I suggest that one is fine as is. I'll investigate the other issues, too. Schwede66 00:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I got dragged away from the computer and then went bush for a few days. Regarding "conversion therapy" being sourced entirely to an opinion piece, I've added another citation. I've introduced his change of views regarding civil unions at first mention. I've removed the direct quote regarding the Venn Foundation; what's there now is referenced by the Newshub source. Lastly, I've expanded the lead somewhat. Please let me know whether that addresses all the issues, Hameltion. Schwede66 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Schwede66: Mention of conversion therapy still appears not entirely due: we've got just an unattributed opinion piece – by a journalist or not – and a new citation with just a passing mention of Fleming (yes, of course he led the organization at the time). The statement's contentious enough to have been vandalized in the week of this review; recommend finding stronger sourcing or paring back. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I've commented it out, Hameltion, and otherwise expanded the article. Let me know if it's ok now. Schwede66 02:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Approved Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
18 Jamie Arbuckle
Approved All formally OK in length, neutrality, sourcing, no copyvio. Could use some added information about any political positions or goals, achievements on council, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
19 Casey Costello

Almost

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Expanded three refs, fixed a typo, but I am concerned about the undue weight issues with said refs concerning the New Conservatives Party, especially since two of them are primary (one of them is FB) and the article could really use a secondary source like this. Otherwise looks good. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for improving those references, Miraclepine, and for your review. I've had a go and improved a bunch of things, including what you pointed to in your review. Good find regarding your suggested ref; I regard Alex Braae as the top authority on fringe parties. Please let me know whether the article is now up to spec. Schwede66 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Schwede66: I removed one minor thing not supported by the sources, but other than that,   Approved. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
20 Tanya Unkovich
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Had to remove an unverifiable detail sourced to a now-private YouTube video, but otherwise looks good. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

21 Reuben Davidson
Approved Meets requirements. Though education seems to be missing and could add margin of victory in 2023. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review Hameltion. Have added his broadcasting degree (I don't think we know anything else about his education), and the margin in the final results. DrThneed (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
22 Cushla Tangaere-Manuel
Approved Removed one seemingly trivial detail, otherwise quite well done. Lede could at least mention broadcasting and sports administration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Hameltion, have attended to that. DrThneed (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
23 Scott Willis
Approved Resolved mild OR with copyedit. Could use broader statement of what his activism/service career has consisted of/benefit from more independent sourcing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review Hameltion. I've added a couple of extra sources (there's been surprisingly little further coverage of him since the election). The Willis-authored articles were there to provide some info on issues he cares/writes about - I would rather have sourced to a summary by a third party but as yet haven't found one. Maybe there's a better way to include them, though - in an academic bio, I would have a selected pubs section, but that isn't usual in a politician bio. I could move them to External links perhaps if you think that would be better? DrThneed (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@DrThneed: Selected publications would work. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done. DrThneed (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
24 Darleen Tana
Very close Ref5's URL (Ling) is a search result, but other sourcing OK. Questions on prose: worked on projects is fairly unspecific, and in the role of Kaiārahi could use explanation. New to mainspace, long enough, neutral. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review Hameltion. PressReader won't give me a URL for the article for ref 5, so I've removed the URL and added that it was accessed via PressReader instead. I can't find any specifics about what she did in China or Singapore, if I find anything I'll add it in, otherwise I have at least removed the repetitiveness of work/worked/working. The role of Kaiārahi is not defined on the project website, nor on Wikipedia. It can mean leader or navigator or guide, but I am not going to define it here when it is not defined in the source, so have just removed the words instead. DrThneed (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Approved Works for me. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
25 Tākuta Ferris
Almost New/long. But is this Maori Party press release, and the long quotation, due for inclusion? Consider (not demanding) adding independent info on his pre-2023 campaigning, such as from this article, and maybe a bit about his art. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review, Hameltion. I've dealt with the sensible changes suggested by you. Please let me know whether you see room for more improvement. Schwede66 04:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Approved Good addition. Just small things: was "shining" could use in-text attribution, and "self-described" shouldn't be necessary—sources like [1] [2] may help clarify. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
28 Laura Trask
Approved. Only suggestion would be to maybe explain what "out-of-hours medical support" is a little better. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review Sammi Brie. I tweaked the wording to be 'after-hours' (which is the term used in the source, and is a pretty common term over here for a loose reference to evenings/nights/weekends ie when your average medical centre is closed), and also to say she advocated for 24h support, to help with context. Hopefully that is clearer for an international audience but let me know if you think not! DrThneed (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
29 Cameron Luxton
@DrThneed: The paragraph beginning "Luxton contested..." contains no citations. Please rectify this and ping me as the article is otherwise ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sammi Brie: thanks for the review. Have added three, hopefully looks a bit better but let me know if any remaining issues. DrThneed (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Approved Looking better. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
31 Carlos Cheung
Approved No DYK issues on this one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
32 Todd Stephenson
Approved. No textual issues and long enough. Suggest to DrThneed to reword "workplace" before "J&J Open and Out Employee Resource Network" as a bit of a kludge with the big proper name at the end. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Sammi Brie, have reworded and should be less clumsy now. DrThneed (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
33 Takutai Moana Kemp

I'll take this one. I'm busy, so I'll review this in ~9 hours (00:00 UTC). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 16:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even busier then expected; I'll review this next night. If I don't do it by 00:00 UTC, another reviewer is free to take this. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Looks good to me. Reworded a spot of minor CLOP. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

34 Mariameno Kapa-Kingi
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   I don't think that the lengthy quote in the "Political career" section is necessary or neutral—what else is a candidate for that party going to say? I suspect it was inserted to bring the character count above 1500. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC

Thanks for the review, AirshipJungleman29. I agree with those concerns and have given the bio a good once-over. It should be a lot more meaningful now, putting her 2023 electoral success in context. Please let me know if you see further room for improvement. Schwede66 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
35 Kahurangi Carter
Review:
  • Article was moved into mainspace on the 3rd of November, nomination was on the 17th of October...
  • Over 1,500 characters of prose
  • Spot check reveals okay sources
  • Earwig states "Violation Unlikely", at 4.8%
  • Article is presentable (of adequate quality to be linked on the main page)
  • Image is freely licensed, trusting the VRT on the WikiCommons page
  • DrThneed donated this for a QPQ
  • No other, subjective issues preventing this from showing up on the main page. However, the talk page doesn't link to this nom.
This is going to be a pass   Bremps... 22:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
42 Nancy Lu
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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Final nomination result
edit

  To prevent this nomination from being prematurely moved to the Approved page before all articles have been reviewed and approved (as has already happened), a "review needed" icon was placed before this sentence. Please do not not supersede it with a tick icon below here until every one of the nominations above have been reviewed and given their tick icons. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Considering how long this nomination has been ongoing and the length of time the reviews have taken, I do wonder if more of the articles (not all, but perhaps a few more, maybe five or less) could be spun off into individual nominations/hooks. Keeping them unapproved for too long instead of giving them the chance to shine on the main page just seems unfair to the articles IMO. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nah. There's just four reviews to go: Butterick, Anderson, Kapa-Kingi, and Lu. It'll be done soon. Schwede66 23:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Narutolovehinata5, DrThneed, and Schwede66:, I have just reviewed those four articles; three were passed, but Kapa-Kingi needs to be attended to. Once that's done, and once Hameltion has approved Greg Fleming, this nomination can be approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  All articles reviewed and approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  In case I was meant to remove the re-review sign. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angee_Nicholas&oldid=1248854886"