- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sam Carling
- ... that Sam Carling was the first UK MP born in the 21st century? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/06/labour-sam-carling-22-first-mp-born-in-21st-century
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rashmika Mandanna
- Comment: Drive-by nom. Some editors are allergic to "first" hooks, but as there is only a finite number of MPs and all of their ages are in the public domain I think we're safe.
Created by Roc0ast3r (talk), JeffUK (talk), Yngvadottir (talk), Jyeboah77 (talk), and Akpqegoj (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 238 past nominations.
Launchballer 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC).
- Comment only. It's interesting that you say that
all of their ages are in the public domain
. I spent a few hours yesterday clearing Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency of dozens of links to disambiguation pages. Very, very few of the new MP bios included a year of birth. I don't doubt that The Guardian has got its facts straight, but I do doubt that your statement holds true. If it was true, those bios would presumably have included birth years. Schwede66 05:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, that was a very clumsy way of putting that. I meant that all of the information would have been available to the Guardian for them to fact-check their claim (especially given that baby of the House is a thing). It's very unlikely someone else is going to sprout up and prove us wrong.--Launchballer 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: The Guardian's just published an article saying that two further MPs were 24 at the time of election, and sniffing around some less than reputable sources (the @Tomorrow'sMPs Twitter account, which appears to be operated by Michael Crick) says that both Josh Dean (politician) and Euan Stainbank were born in 2000.
It would appear that Carling's constituency declared first, but I'll do a deep dive into live results when I'm finished with Dead Pony.I do note that the Guardian has not retracted the article cited on this page.--Launchballer 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- According to the Economist, Stainbank's Falkirk declared at 3:47, Dean's Hertford and Stortford declared at 4:03, and Carling's North West Cambridgeshire declared at 5:59. However, I did some further digging, and it turns out I've got the start of the 21st century wrong as there is no year zero in the Anno Domini system. So I am right, but not for the reason I expected.--Launchballer 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: The Guardian's just published an article saying that two further MPs were 24 at the time of election, and sniffing around some less than reputable sources (the @Tomorrow'sMPs Twitter account, which appears to be operated by Michael Crick) says that both Josh Dean (politician) and Euan Stainbank were born in 2000.
- Apologies, that was a very clumsy way of putting that. I meant that all of the information would have been available to the Guardian for them to fact-check their claim (especially given that baby of the House is a thing). It's very unlikely someone else is going to sprout up and prove us wrong.--Launchballer 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think the provided QPQ is valid because no hook was actually reviewed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because there were no hooks on the page for me to review and because I was explicitly invited to propose one - the only valid hook on that page is ALT2, which is my hook. Reviewers often propose new hooks and call for new reviewers, I fail to see the difference.--Launchballer 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to preempt a possible 'it's been a week without a QPQ' comment, my view remains that the provided QPQ is valid, on the grounds that the only hook on the page was mine, and I consider this no different to a reviewer saying 'this hook would be better, someone else needs to approve it'. I don't plan on doing a second. An actual reviewer can adjudicate on it.--Launchballer 11:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Coming up with a good hook is as much work as reviewing a hook. Hence, this is a valid QPQ in my books (at least in spirit, and if others see it differently, then I suggest IAR). Schwede66 04:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the QPQ provided above should be fine. Yes a new opinion was requested, but that was only with regards to signing off a hook. Launchballer still did the actual article checks, which are ultimately what are most important to filling the QPQ requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because there were no hooks on the page for me to review and because I was explicitly invited to propose one - the only valid hook on that page is ALT2, which is my hook. Reviewers often propose new hooks and call for new reviewers, I fail to see the difference.--Launchballer 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
agree with NLH5 and Schwede66 :) full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Unsure if there is a policy I am missing but some details in the infobox seem to be unsourced anywhere in the article, e.g. the exact date of him assuming office or the percentage of his majority - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Earwig highlighted some concerns with a specific site, particularly with the last sentence of the first paragraph under Political Career.
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Reviewing this after there seems to be agreement that the qpq is acceptable. Also noting that the 21st century started in 2001, so the fact other MP's were born in 2000 does not negate the validity of the hook.
Currently Executive Councillor links to a disambig page. Please can this be updated to point towards a specific article?
@Launchballer: Please let me know if you have any questions about this review? CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Flicking through the page's history, I am 100% certain they got it from us. I'll do the rest when I get back from shopping.--Launchballer 14:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't see a link at Executive Councillor when I got there, so I guess that's fine, and I think I've taken out everything in the infobox not in the body. Also, that 'joint-youngest Labour MP ever' fact may make a better hook, but I'm disinclined to propose it given how close it is (the Telegraph piece cited says "almost to the day") and this will almost certainly change when we know dates.--Launchballer 10:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The date he assumed office (5 July) is still in the info box but is not given in the article. CSJJ104 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- My bad. I've added the date of the election to the article.--Launchballer 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see that @GuardianH: took it back out again. I don't think it matters that it's already in the election article - for verification purposes, it should also be here. Is there some WP:SKYISBLUE thing I'm not aware of?--Launchballer 05:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I personally would consider the date someone started a new job to be covered by WP:BLP. I would question though if 4 July is the correct date? I know it is the one we are using for new MP's, but would the day they were sworn in, or the state opening of Parliament not be a better choice? CSJJ104 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's 4 July per his Parliament.uk profile.--Launchballer 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I personally would consider the date someone started a new job to be covered by WP:BLP. I would question though if 4 July is the correct date? I know it is the one we are using for new MP's, but would the day they were sworn in, or the state opening of Parliament not be a better choice? CSJJ104 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see that @GuardianH: took it back out again. I don't think it matters that it's already in the election article - for verification purposes, it should also be here. Is there some WP:SKYISBLUE thing I'm not aware of?--Launchballer 05:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- My bad. I've added the date of the election to the article.--Launchballer 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The date he assumed office (5 July) is still in the info box but is not given in the article. CSJJ104 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't see a link at Executive Councillor when I got there, so I guess that's fine, and I think I've taken out everything in the infobox not in the body. Also, that 'joint-youngest Labour MP ever' fact may make a better hook, but I'm disinclined to propose it given how close it is (the Telegraph piece cited says "almost to the day") and this will almost certainly change when we know dates.--Launchballer 10:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Surprised that the official start date is the day of the election, but that is indeed the case. Otherwise all issues raised in review have been resolved and no new ones were found. CSJJ104 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)