This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
A fact from Election apportionment diagram appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that an election apportionment diagram(example pictured) is used to explain data in easy-to-understand terms?
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.
Overall: Thank you for this article, and for your great care in keeping it neutral at this time. I would guess that any hook on this subject would be very hooky in the world context of current elections. Right now, ALT0 is topical, while remaining safely neutral, and I would recommend that you stay with that hook. I have looked at most of the article's citations and they are OK. Earwig shows no copyvio - it only found your long quotation, which is fine. The hook citation checks out. One minor issue: The image is fine, but the caption is longer than the norm for the DYK section on the main page. This does not affect your DYK nomination status, but I would recommend shortening it yourself, otherwise an administrator may do it for you. I don't think you need to mention the mirroring of the Bundestag seating plan in the image caption here because that is explained clearly in the article. The QPQ is done. Re your question about improving the article title - I think the existing title is fine, because its meaning is clear; for example in the hook ALT0 it indicates clearly the meaning of the image. The only possible grounds for changing the title, in my opinion, would be if it were established that lots of authoritative sources were consistently giving this type of chart another official name - and I have not yet seen that. I believe this nomination is good to go. Storye book (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this article, and for your great care in keeping it neutral at this time. I would guess that any hook on this subject would be very hooky in the world context of current elections. Right now, ALT0 is topical, while remaining safely neutral, and I would recommend that you stay with that hook. I have looked at most of the article's citations and they are OK. Earwig shows no copyvio - it only found your long quotation, which is fine. The hook citation checks out. One minor issue: The image is fine, but the caption is longer than the norm for the DYK section on the main page. This does not affect your DYK nomination status, but I would recommend shortening it yourself, otherwise an administrator may do it for you. I don't think you need to mention the mirroring of the Bundestag seating plan in the image caption here because that is explained clearly in the article. The QPQ is done. Re your question about improving the article title - I think the existing title is fine, because its meaning is clear; for example in the hook ALT0 it indicates clearly the meaning of the image. The only possible grounds for changing the title, in my opinion, would be if it were established that lots of authoritative sources were consistently giving this type of chart another official name - and I have not yet seen that. I believe this nomination is good to go. Storye book (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)