Template:Did you know nominations/Ballot laws of the Roman Republic
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ballot laws of the Roman Republic
edit
Receiving (left) and casting (right) a secret ballot, Roman Republic, 113-112 BC
- that the ballot laws introduced the secret ballot (voting pictured) to all popular assemblies in the Roman Republic? Source: first sentence of [1]
- ALT1:that the ballot laws introduced the secret ballot for electoral, judicial, and legislative votes (voting pictured) in the Roman Republic? Source: "The Lex Gabinia of 139 introduced for the first time secret ballot into elections; there followed a series of laws extending this right — the Lex Cassia of 137 about non-capital prosecution, the Lex Papiria of 131 about legislation and the Lex Coelia of 107 about capital prosecutions." (Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Volume IX, p.45)
- Reviewed: Not necessary (this is my 2nd DYK nomination), but I'll do one anyways when I have time
Created/expanded by Bowlhover (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC).
- I think the hook would be better if it listed the approximate dates (century or broadly). "ballot laws" just sounds very generic. Volunteer Marek 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2: that the second century BC ballot laws introduced the secret ballot (voting pictured) to the Roman Republic? --Bowlhover (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the mention of the date is an improvement (but liked the assemblies link). While I haven't read all the sources, and thus can't personally guarantee that there's no copyvio from them, it's new, long, and neutral enough, the source is the hook is good, and the subject is clearly of general interest. I'd argue that the image caption would be better if it included the word "secret" ("Receiving (left) and casting (right) a secret ballot, Roman Republic, 113-112 BC"?), and one could then drop the "(voting pictured)" from the hook:
- ALT3: that the second-century BC ballot laws introduced the secret ballot to the Roman Republic?
- Frankly, though, even if you decide not to make these changes it's an excellent DYK, hence the tick.
- ALT2: that the second century BC ballot laws introduced the secret ballot (voting pictured) to the Roman Republic? --Bowlhover (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bowlhover: I don't think this nomination can move forward until the merger position is resolved and the tags removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I didn't know that was a rule. I was the one who proposed the merger, but I have no strong opinions on it while one user is against it, so I opened a discussion to see what other people thought. Since nobody's responded in more than a week, I think it's fair to close the discussion if the nomination can't move forward without doing so. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset mentioned this merger tag rule in regard to another nomination a few days ago. If you remove the tags, the DYK can go ahead and you can reconsider the merger later if you wish. I like the image! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I didn't know that was a rule. I was the one who proposed the merger, but I have no strong opinions on it while one user is against it, so I opened a discussion to see what other people thought. Since nobody's responded in more than a week, I think it's fair to close the discussion if the nomination can't move forward without doing so. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)