Template:Did you know nominations/Taunton by-election, 1701

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Taunton by-election, 1701

(

)

... that despite allegations that the vote was corrupt, the 1701 Taunton by-election result stood?

ALT1:... that the Mayor of Taunton refused to scrutinise the votes in the 1701 by-election in which he was accused of corruption?
Reviewded: 2014 FA Community Shield

Created by Harrias (talk). Self nominated at 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook directly cited to RS. I love how Wikipedia has articles on such obscure topics. --Jakob (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

- the article says that the Mayor was corrupt, yet ALT0 says the voting was corrupt, which led me to believe that the voters themselves were somehow corrupted. Why the discrepancy? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a discrepancy. The article states the the claim was that the Mayor let some illegal votes be made, and did not allow other legal votes. This would make both some of the voters (ie, the voting) AND the Mayor corrupt. The original hook could be clarified slightly by changing "voting" to "vote" I suppose? Harrias ^talk 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: did a bit of a ce. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Other than "corruped" not being a real word (I changed it back to corrupt) it's fine, given it's what I suggested! Harrias ^talk 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns addressed. restoring tick. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)