Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Reid (politician)
- 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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Margaret Reid (politician)
- ... that Margaret Reid was appointed to the Australian Senate 20 years after losing an election for the House of Representatives?
- Source: Valedictory speech at Parliament of Australia "The opportunity for me to become a senator ... I was appointed to this job at a joint sitting of the two houses of the federal parliament on 5 May 1981" and "Senator Reid has confidence in 'thriving city' " at Canberra Times "In 1961, she conducted her first electoral campaign, as the Liberal candidate for the Federal seat of Bonython, in South Australia." and 1961 legislative election results at Adam Carr's archive
Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC).
- Is there another hook that can be proposed here? Politicians being appointed to or elected to positions after losing previously is very common and not at all unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at the article, I'm surprised the following wasn't proposed:
- ALT1 ... that Margaret Reid is the first woman to serve as President of the Australian Senate? (Source: "Rising Above the Genteel Rumble of the Pink Palace" Canberra Times at ProQuest 1016152950 (via Wikipedia Library) "She made Australian political history on August 20, 1996 when she became the first woman President of the Senate."
- Although a "first" hook (a kind of hook that has been discouraged on DYK as of late), it is one that should be relatively easy to verify/support and thus not as an exceptional of a claim as most other "first" hooks. In addition, it's the highlight of her career, but more importantly, probably more interesting to a broad audience than just merely losing an election then winning/being appointed again later. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, ALT1 looks good to me; I've added a source already cited in the article at that sentence (in the body). She had some other "firsts" (first and only president representing a territory, first female deputy president, and I thought first female whip though I'm not finding a source on that right now) but only included the major one so as not to emphasize this too much per WP:FIRSTWOMAN. I wouldn't put it in the lead sentence, but it seems fine to me for DYK. If there are objections, though, I don't mind withdrawing the nomination. I also piped women to Women in the Australian Senate if that's alright. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at the article, I'm surprised the following wasn't proposed:
Full review needed now that another hook has been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think a strict reading of WP:5X means we should compare the size of the article before the removal of unsourced material (part of its recent edits by the nominator) to its size after the nominator's expansion. By that standard, the readable prose size has gone from 2046B to 5393B, far from a 5X expansion. ALT1 is ok, QPQ has been done, and although Earwig found some similar phrases none looked problematic to me. So only the size is a problem, but it is a problem. Is it reasonable to expand the article much farther to roughly double its present size, or is that beyond reach? If it can be expanded, I still need to do a more careful source check. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I believe it's beyond reach to expand it much further. There might be something about charity boards and local ACT groups she's worked with (there were apparently very many of these) but I didn't find good enough independent sourcing to cover that. Likewise, the coverage of her legal career is thin but I didn't find any independent commentary on it. I acknowledge that my removal of unsourced material prior to the 7-day expansion period could be seen as gaming the system. If it's no good, the article is a GAN and will hopefully get a review during this month's Women in Green drive. Up to you whether you want to pass, fail, or hold it pending a GAN review. Or I could ping you for a review after GAN, if that would work better. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's hold off until after the (I hope trouble-free) GA review. To avoid confusion with dates it might be best to make that as a new nomination once it passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I believe it's beyond reach to expand it much further. There might be something about charity boards and local ACT groups she's worked with (there were apparently very many of these) but I didn't find good enough independent sourcing to cover that. Likewise, the coverage of her legal career is thin but I didn't find any independent commentary on it. I acknowledge that my removal of unsourced material prior to the 7-day expansion period could be seen as gaming the system. If it's no good, the article is a GAN and will hopefully get a review during this month's Women in Green drive. Up to you whether you want to pass, fail, or hold it pending a GAN review. Or I could ping you for a review after GAN, if that would work better. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
