Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2021 [1].

2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election

[edit]
Nominator(s): N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a parliamentary by-election in Lincolnshire, England, in December 2016, back when Brexit dominated British politics (as it would for years). A Brexit-supporting Conservative MP resigned to protest Prime Minister Theresa May's handling of the issue, triggering an election in his safe seat. The Conservatives held the seat easily, while UKIP rose to second and Labour fell to fourth. It's a fairly short article, but I think it's comprehensive.

This would be my first featured article, as well as the first featured article on a British election. I got this article to GA status last year, after a review by The Rambling Man, and expanded it a bit this month, getting helpful feedback from HJ Mitchell through the Mentoring for FAC scheme. I hope you find the article interesting, and I'd be very grateful for any comments.N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are freely licensed. It would be cool to include photographs of other candidates, however. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was triggered on 4 November 2016 by the resignation of". Optional: 'It was triggered by the resignation on 4 November 2016 of'?
    • Made the change you suggested
  • "Lincolnshire Independent" in the Infobox, but "Lincolnshire Independents" in the graph.
    • Standardised
  • "compared to the result in the constituency at the previous general election". "in the constituency" seems redundant. Where else might a reader think is meant?
    • Removed
  • Lead: Why are we told the share of the vote gained by all parties mentioned, but not for the Labour Party?
    • Added vote share
  • "which is lower than". "is" → 'was'.
    • Changed
  • "it elects one Member of Parliament" Why the upper case initial letters?
    • I think this is the standard way of writing it. For example "the dispute ... had "no connection" with Mr Burns's duties as a Member of Parliament" on BBC News ([2]) or "The UK public elects Members of Parliament" on the Parliament website ([3]). Happy to change if corrected though.
Probably. But we are not guided by the BBC here, but by the MoS. See MOS:JOBTITLES.
Changed
  • Graph: Is the purple blob bottom left a stray?
    • That's the Referendum Party, who only stood in the 1997 election. I've removed it though.
  • "because the results were counted in counting areas". Possibly 'because the results were totalled and announced in counting areas' or similar.
    • Changed
  • "Based on the estimates". "the" → 'these'.
    • Done
  • "out of the 650 UK Parliament constituencies" Should that be 'Parliamentary'?
    • Indeed it should, changed
  • "Attorney General". Why the upper case initial letters?
    • Changed to lower case
  • "following a hustings". Could we have a brief in line explanation of a hustings?
    • Added
  • "She would continue to practise medicine after winning the by-election." Is it not possible to give this information in its chronological place?
    • I've removed it due to concerns about the reliability of the source
  • "put themselves forth" Suggest 'forward'.
    • Done
  • "who works for an optician". "works" → 'worked', given the dates of the sources.
    • Done
  • "Sarah Stock, a campaigner". Is it known what she campaigned for?
    • She was an NHS campaigner; I've added that.
  • "Peter Hill, standing as The Iconic Arty-Pole" I don't understand this.
    • His legal name is Peter Hill, but the name that appeared on the ballot paper is The Iconic Arty-Pole, which is allowed (there are many examples of British satirical candidates doing this, most famously "Lord Buckethead"). I've reworded it.
  • "the latter two appeared on the ballot paper with no description" Is "no description" appropriate? Perhaps 'no stated party affiliation' or similar?
    • "No description" is the term used by the source. The point is that not only did they not have the name of a party next to their name on the ballot, they also did not have the word "Independent" next to their names (see for example page 3 of this document [4]).
I am aware of how it works. Despite the wording of the source, the current text gives the impression to those happily unaware of the intricacies of the UK electoral system that the ballot paper includes a "description" of each candidate. There is no rule against paraphrasing the source so as to make it clearer to a reader.
Changed

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote near the start of "Campaign" should be a block quote. See MOS:BQ. And is it possible to work Article 50 into the prior text somewhere to prevent the "You what?" of non-UK/EU readers?
    • Done (added to background section)
  • "A 2019 article discussed". Any chance of a little more information on this article?
    • Added
  • "Richmond Park by-election had turnout of over 50%." 'a turnout'?
    • Done
  • "having been in second place in the seat in the 2015 general election." Optional: delete "in the seat".
    • Done

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

[edit]
  • "Stephen Phillips was first elected in the 2010 general election and was re-elected in the 2015 general election" – Consider "re-elected in 2015" to avoid repetition.
  • "(Overton was the only 2015 candidate who also stood ...)" – might be better as a standalone sentence, and phrasing as follows: "Overton would be the only 2015 candidate to stand..." Otherwise the jump between time periods is a tiny bit confusing.
  • Alt text is needed for Johnson in the lead.
  • "a NHS (the National Health Service)" – would it not be common to introduce by the full name, "a National Health Service (NHS)..."? (And otherwise, I think it might be "an NHS" as it starts with a vowel sound.)
  • Under "Candidates", I feel UKIP have a little undue weight given to them given their vote share but length of text as long as the Tories. This could be addressed by wording a bit more tightly e.g. "These remarks were brought up during the by-election campaign" can be established in the previous sentence. And I'm not sure what I can learn from the quote "[it was not] the right time for [him] to seek election to Parliament"—just saying he withdraws in the previous clause sort of says the same concrete facts.
  • Since none of their comments are quoted, it may be better to merge the Corbyn/Farron/Nuttall/Farage visits into a single sentence at the top ("The party leaders of Labour (Jeremy Corbyn), ...").
  • Can we mention the House of Commons makeup at the time of the by-election? Otherwise, a non-UK figure might not realise that Labour had hundreds of seats, Lib Dems had a handful and UKIP had one, which is important to bear in mind when weighing (as a reader) what results for which parties are successes/failures.
  • "described as "one of the party's all-time best by-election performances while in government", "which was described as "remarkably low"" – by whom? Attribute quotes in prose, otherwise the reader has no idea how significant/mainstream the comments are.
  • "widely seen as poor for the Labour Party" – In the vein of the previous comment, this could even be "widely seen by journalists" (but this is a lesser deal).
  • "UKIP's performance was also seen as poor, though Paul Nutall, the leader of UKIP, said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish even though the party's vote-share ..." – Rather than going back-and-forth, how about: "UKIP's performance was also seen as poor, with their vote-share declining in comparison with the 2015 general election results, though Nuttall said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish." (Notice: two "t"s in "Nuttall" and he's already introduced earlier.)
  • Not a suggestion, just thought the "Aftermath" sentence "May in May ... Johnson supported Johnson" was a bit funny. Hard to word but no criticisms.
  • "At the 2019 general election, she" – the "she" is not so clear as it's a new paragraph and May was the last-mentioned woman (and also increased her majority over Labour).
  • Inconsistent linking/not linking in refs, unless there's a rule I'm not understanding – you can choose to unlink all works/publishers, link only on the first occurrence or link on every occurrence.
  • The "Aftermath" caption gets a full stop as it's a full sentence.
  • The Iconic Arty-Pole in results table could mention in a footnote that the candidate's real name is "Peter Hill", just for ease of reference.
  • Hill had some serious political opinions too, it looks like from Sleaford Standard (in particular, he voted Leave) – is it worth adding a sentence or clause about this?
  • New Statesman could have url-access=limited in the references.
  • Spotchecks: 30, 46, 58, 70, 72, 76, 86, 88, 92 (numbers as of this version). In #72 ([5]), "said that this would be a sign of a realignment of British politics based on views on Brexit instead of the traditional left–right political spectrum" seems like too strong a summary of: Is the old divide between left and right being transcended by a new faultline between Remainers and Outers? The honest answer is that we don’t yet know. Might be better as "questioned whether this could indicate ..." or similar. No other issues—very good faithfulness to the sources.
  • (Not FA criteria related.) Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election linked in "See also" but is that the link meant? Three GEs later is not really relevant to the 2016 by-election.

Very good overall, had to work hard to come up with suggestions. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments! I believe I've addressed almost all of them; I don't think the Election box template supports alt text, I chose to keep "widely seen" because it was also described that way by politicians, not just journalists, and I think the New Statesman already had url-access=limited, but otherwise I've done what you suggested in all cases. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like you can do it within the image, by replacing [[File:Official portrait of Dr Caroline Johnson crop 2.jpg|100px]] with [[File:Official portrait of Dr Caroline Johnson crop 2.jpg|100px|alt=ALT TEXT HERE]], though I don't use a screen reader so who knows? Other than this, I'm satisfied that everything has been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work; done. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 22:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, support. Thanks for the quick responses! Hope my comments were useful (and you were right about New Statesman, not sure how I missed that). — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I am somewhat familiar with the UK electoral system and I am fascinated with UK politics. Although I do not remember this by-election, I think you can consider me a "moderate expert" on this topic.

  • "76.3% of the population was economically active" What does economically active mean? I recommend rewording
    • Replaced with data about employment
  • "Sleaford and North Hykeham has always elected a Conservative MP." Change to "Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation in 1997."
    • Changed to "Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation" so as not to repeat the data of the constituency's creation
  • "Overton would be the only 2015 candidate to stand in the 2016 by-election." Change "would be" to "was"
    • Done
  • "At the general election on 8 May 2015, the Conservative Party won a narrow majority in the House of Commons, winning 331 of the 650 total seats, and the party's leader, David Cameron, became Prime Minister." This implies that Cameron became PM in 2015, but he became PM in 2010. This should be reworded.
    • Done
  • "As of the day before the referendum, 185 Conservative MPs declared they would vote to remain and 138 declared they would vote to leave." Why is this sentence relevant to this article?
    • I think it's relevant because it shows the division within the party over Brexit, and provides more information than just saying that the party was officially neutral in the referendum. I'm willing to remove it though.
  • "Immediately after the referendum result was announced, Cameron resigned.[24] He was replaced in July 2016 as Conservative leader and as Prime Minister by Theresa May." Combine with the previous paragraph.
    • Done
  • "the date of which was not immediately known, though by-elections usually take place within several months of a seat becoming vacant." Replace this with information about when the by-election was called (currently in the next paragraph)
    • Good idea, done
  • "She defeated the two other finalists" remove "the"
    • Done
  • "On 5 December, Farage campaigned in front of a poster on which "Hykeham" was misspelt as "Hykenham"." What was the public/media reaction to this?
    • Added something
  • "in an opinion piece in The Guardian on December 4, the journalist" Why is the number after the month here?
    • Fixed
  • I added a non-breaking space to various dates in the article. This prevents breaks in the text that might cause confusion for the reader, especially on a smaller screen like a smartphone. This was taught to me by a GOCE editor. Please revert if you do not like the change.
    • Seems fine to me

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'll get to them on Monday or Tuesday. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 22:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you for all your helpful comments; I believe I've addressed them all now. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 19:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Between January and December in 2016". This is clumsy and convoluted. Why not "In 2016"?
  • "The constituency was first contested in the 1997 general election." This sounds as if it was uncontested before, but it must have been a new constituency.
  • "Phillips resigned over the issue" It may be obvious, but I think you need to specify that he resigned his parliamentary seat, and maybe the formal appointment as Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
  • "The Daily Telegraph reported that Phillips, who is a lawyer, may have been motivated by disappointment over not being promoted to attorney general." The Telegraph article was based on claims of Tory MPs who were trying to cast doubt on his motives. This should be made clear.
  • "Jon Trickett, a spokesman for the Labour Party, said the series of resignations "amount[ed] to a leadership crisis" in the Conservative Party." I am not sure that such a predictable comment is worth mentioning.
  • "The Liberal Democrats selected Ross Pepper, who worked for an optician, on 11 November,[55] who stood in Lincoln in the 2015 general election, coming third." This is convoluted and clumsy.
  • "the party came fourth in the by-election results" Why results plural? Are you referring to Richmond Park as well? If not, I suggest deleting "in the by-election results".
  • "though Nuttall said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish." Another comment so predictable it is not worth quoting.
  • A first rate article. Just a few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I've made all the changes you suggested. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

[edit]
  • Any reason we're not linking United Kingdom Parliament constituencies in the lead?
    • Added link
  • The "no image" images in the infobox looks really weird, like I'm still waiting for them to load or something. Is that nothing we can put in there equivalent to an image "N/A"?
    • Good idea, done
  • I see the image with a human has alt text, but the "no image" doesn't, it should.
    • Done
  • "a paediatrician" is her chosen vocation important for the lead? Or is it somehow to reflect that she wasn't a lifelong politician?
    • I think if it just said "the Conservatives nominated Caroline Johnson to replace Phillips", the natural question would be "who?" I'm open to getting rid of it though.
  • "Brexit was a key issue in the campaign." in the "by-election" campaign".
    • Done
  • "anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) " our article describes UKIP as "Eurosceptic", not out-and-out anti-EU.
    • "Anti-EU" is used by many sources to describe UKIP: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
      • Sure, I realise. But it's in the lead without reference and that description (as far as I can see) doesn't appear in the main body so perhaps it should, on first UKIP mention (especially as Brexit is oft mentioned) along with the references you provided here to demonstrate that they were anti-EU as opposed to "euro-sceptic" per our article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added to the body with three of those sources
  • "13.5%" vs "10%", Labour got 10.2%, why not consistent decimal places?
    • Rounded
  • There's inconsistent re-linking between the lead and the main body of the text, what's the approach?
    • I intended to re-link everything; should hopefully be fixed now
  • "when it was created" this is an alien concept to many, is there some detail on why/how a new constituency suddenly came into existence in 1997, e.g. constituency boundary changes, reviews etc?
    • Clarified
  • You capitalise Member of Parliament in the lead but not in the main body.
    • Fixed
  • You also abbreviate it in both places but you only abbreviate UKIP (for instance) in the lead.
    • Spelled out UKIP's full name in the body
  • Referendum Party got 5.5% of the votes in 1997 but they're not shown on the graph.
    • I thought it would be confusing to leave them in the graph (since it would just be a dot); I've changed the caption
  • "At the general election.." this sentence isn't sparkling prose, "won ... winning" is repetitive and the parenthetical note about Cameron repeating his name and position almost instantly is awkward).
    • Reworded
  • One could ask why you've skipped over SNP etc in the numbers of seats here. If you're just talking about the results of the parties who participated in the by-election, you should make that clear.
    • Good point; clarified
  • I also wonder, given the sources take me straight to a graph on "popular votes" where UKIP got 12.6% of votes but 0.15% of the seats in parliament, if first past the post needs explanation too.
    • Added
  • "voted to leave the European Union (EU), ... votes cast in favour of leaving the EU. The UK did not leave the EU ...." again, not sparkling prose, repetitive.
    • Reworded
  • "The Conservative Party was officially neutral in the referendum..." this and subsequent sentences feel out of order in the chronology, you've already told us the result and that we went into a transition period before then going back to discuss Cameron and other Tory MP's position on the referendum, feels a bit muddled.
    • Re-ordered
  • I note at this point I don't think you've linked Prime Minister despite it being mentioned a few times.
    • Linked
  • "Sleaford and North Hykeham voted 61.6%" really "members of the constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham voted 61.6%"
    • I went with "voters in"
  • "a parliamentary vote (the government appealed the ruling)." the parenthetical clause is important, so could be a sentence in its own right, and also I imagine our readers would like to know the result of that appeal.
    • Added
  • "under Prime Minister Theresa May for failing" no need to reiterate she's PM, and you've already mentioned and linked her, so "May" would suffice.
    • Done
  • Conservative Association has an article.
    • Linked
  • "to attorney general" shouldn't that formal title be capitalised here?
    • Done
  • "Phillips' resignation" per MOS, that should be Phillips's or reworded to avoid such a horrendous construct.
  • Two sentences out of three in this para start "Phillips' resignation..."
    • Reworded one of those and added the s to the other
  • You link by-election here, but it's mentioned in the "Constituency" section.
    • Fixed

That takes me to the "Candidates and campaign" section. I'll come back soon for the remainder of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part ii

  • "lives near Sleaford" did you actually link the town of Sleaford yet?
    • Linked
  • "two other finalists" was there a downselection to the final three then?
    • Probably, but I can't find any information about it
  • "10 November; Evans withdrew because" instead of repeating "Evans withdrew" why not "10 November, the latter because..."
    • Done
  • "in 2015.[53] She had previously stood" all three were "previously", so I would merge these two sentences.
    • Done
  • "context.[56][9][57]" ref order.
    • Fixed
  • Do the majority of our readers know what a "postman" is (vs. say, a mailman)?
    • I think this falls under WP:ENGVAR (the term mailman isn't used in Britain)
  • "Candidates" section has an overdose of "stood", can we find any synonyms to mix it up a little?
    • Replaced some
  • "he also had some more serious political positions, such as supporting..." this reads strange because I think you're literally saying he had an opinion on Brexit rather than "more serious political positions"... (I think almost all Brits had an opinion on Brexit) still Monster Raving after all...
    • I've cut that; I don't think the minor candidates are that important
  • "campaign.[74][63] Brexit" ref order.
    • Fixed
  • "The party hoped to..." which one?
    • UKIP; clarified
  • "the constituency Richmond Park voted" perhaps "the constituents of..."
    • Done
  • "expected to win " by whom?
    • Added "by journalists"
  • ""betting odds on the gambling website Betfair had the Conservatives as clear favourites with the odds ..." you don't need the first "betting odds on" plus I would link odds.
    • Done
  • "Bus-Pass Elvis" -> BBC has "Bus Pass Elvis" (no hyphen) but the official UK Parliament website has it as "Church of the Militant Elvis Party", so perhaps be consistent with one source and footnote the difference between the two.
    • Done
  • Where is the +/- referenced in the table? The BBC source doesn't have that and the UK Parliament source just lists the change as the same as the %...
  • And the swing?
    • I think this falls under WP:CALC; I've added the 2015 results as a reference to the table
  • "won a large majority" what's large in this context?
  • There's a whole article dedicated to the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn which could be linked.
    • Linked
  • "winning a large majority over" again, not sure about "large" and would prefer numbers.
    • Added numbers on all occasions
  • "of May's Brexit deal on" I wouldn't have "May's" in the pipe.
    • Done
  • Be consistent with access dates for refs. If some online references have them, I would expect all of them to have them.
    • Added access dates
  • Why is BBC News italicised yet Sky News not?
    • Made consistent
  • Also, be consistent, whichever you choose, e.g. ref 33 compared to ref 34.
  • You link ONS several times in the refs but not BBC News or The Guardian for instance, what's the linking strategy?
  • In fact, it looks like you got fed up with linking altogether after ref 6....
  • No, hold on, you link LincsFM at ref 50 and The Conversation (once only) in ref 88! Pick an approach to linking all these publishers/works and be consistent throughout.
  • Ref 82 has Betfair in italics but the use of Betfair in the prose was not.
    • Fixed
  • Was there a source review?
  • I think Peter Barnes has an article...

That's it for the first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, happy to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234

[edit]

Looks like this FAC has been reviewed heavily so I'll try to keep this section brief.

  • The 2016 by-election for the House of Commons constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham in Lincolnshire, England, was held on 8 December 2016. It was triggered by the resignation on 4 November 2016 '2016' is mentioned three times in a short space of time here. I suggest removing one (perhaps the second?) as it is already stated it was in 2016.
    • Removed the second as you suggested
  • and the Labour Party candidate came second we know this person's name so is there any reason not to name them?
    • I don't think naming them would add much; they're not notable enough for an article, and they didn't stand in the by-election. If we included their name in the lead, I think we would have to include the names of the UKIP, Lib Dem and Labour candidates in the by-election in the lead as well, which would get a bit excessive I think.
  • In the infobox, you have notices that there is no image available for two of the candidates, but not the two at the bottom.
    • Added for all
  • he EU in the 23 June 2016 EU membership referendum any need to refer to the specific date of the referendum. How about just June 2016?
    • Done
  • Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation. clarify that only Conservative MPs have been elected. Also, do you "elect a Conservative MP" or "elect a Conservative candidate". Let me know as I'm not entirely sure what the wording should be.
    • Changed to "has only elected Conservative MPs" (this sort of phrasing is used, e.g. here [11])
  • seucring 331 of the 650 total seats typo.
    • Thanks, fixed
  • first-past-the-post is overlinked.
    • Unlinked the second one
  • The 2015 general election occurred on the 7 May. I don't see any mention in the sources [12], [13] that it was 8 May.
    • Thanks for spotting that; fixed
  • Immediately after the referendum result was announced, Cameron resigned resigned from what? It's reasonable to assume he resigned the prime ministership, but it might be worth clarifying.
    • Changed to "resigned as prime minister"
  • In the 'Campaign' section, I'm not sure about the use of starting with a quotation as it might seem confusing for a reader.
    • Moved to the end of the section instead
  • The day before the election, the gambling website Betfair had the Conservatives as clear favourites with the odds of their victory being 1/10; UKIP were considered the next most likely to win with odds of 9/1 this sentence has a reference to the betfair website, which I wouldn't consider a reliable source. Unless a reliable source demonstrates that this has any particular relevance to the election, I would recommend removing.
    • Removed
  • which was described in The Guardian I suggest saying "by The Guardian" as 'in' usually refers to the print.
    • Done
  • A 2019 article in a Scottish newspaper we know which newspaper, so why not name it?
    • Added name
  • A 2019 article in a Scottish newspaper discussed whether the low turnout was due to the time of year, and concluded that the fact that the race was not close was also a factor; this needs some work. For example, you don't actually state whether or not the newspaper concluded that the time of the year was a factor, you only vaguely imply it in the rest of the sentence.
    • Clarified
  • Any reason why we need so much whitespace on both sides of the graph in the 'Aftermath' section? This could be pushed to the side and text moved to the other side.
    • I've changed it

Looks good. Let me know when you have responded. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2016_Sleaford_and_North_Hykeham_by-election/archive1&oldid=1017033339"