THC Science

... that a candidate for the 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election said that he had only hired one Roman Catholic in 48 years as a result of mistaken identity? Source: Contemporary Irish Studies. Manchester University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0719009197.

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: --evrik ^(talk) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: Some parts of the DYK criteria have not been checked; please re-check them, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hook is ambiguous and needs rewording. Does it mean that a single Catholic was hired, and that hire was a result of mistaken identity? Or does it mean that there were many Catholics hired, but only one of them was hired because of mistaken identity, and all the others were hired for other reasons? Or maybe does it mean that only one Catholic was hired, that the candidate admitted that only one Catholic was hired, but they only admitted it because of a mistaken identity of who they were talking to? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I added several "citation needed" tags to the page. There is also a discrepancy between the results in the first chart and the ones underneath. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite seeing a discrepancy? UUP 3 aldermen + 6 North + 3 Waterside = 12. Nats 1 alderman + 5 South (inc 1 N&L) = 6. Labour 1 Alderman + 1 South = 2. IF you're not happy with that, we can always add the N&L as a separate column. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I also find the charts very confusing. The first chart in the "Council results" section appears mostly blank with no explanation why. The "Aldermen" chart says 6 people at the top, but only 5 names listed, and a lot of blank spaces. The "North Ward" and "South Ward" charts have some names in bold, some not, and no explanation why, and a lot of empty cells. The "Waterside Ward" chart appears to say that the turnout was unopposed. What the heck? Overall the charts look horrible. Flibirigit (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flibirgit: Those charts were already in the article before I did the expansion. Would you prefer I removed them and simply replace them with a summary of the results in the text? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Flibirigit:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel that charts are expected in an article about an election, but they should not look like a work in progress. If you can figure out a way to make the charts look complete, please do, or convert to a list or text. Also, the concerns about the ambiguity of the hook as noted by User:David Eppstein still need to be addressed. ALT0 has been struck accordingly. I also caution against any hook that implies something negative about any religion. Flibirigit (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is this languishing? --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple user have taken issue with the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am adding the Alt0 hook back into the mix as I feel it is interesting, and not anti-Catholic. @The C of E:, why are those two charts empty. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: Because the tables were there before I did the expansion. I think I will probably remove them and replace them with a short paragraph summarising the results because I think they are causing more trouble then they are worth. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this one is good to go with ALT0. The chart problem has been removed, and ALT0 only draws objective attention to an apparently bigoted comment of one candidate, and is not an opinionated hook in itself. The article gives a historical snapshot of the state of the world in 1946, and so does the hook, both being in my opinion part of what Wikipedia stands for. Storye book (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ::*I am adding the Alt0 hook back into the mix as I feel it is interesting, and not anti-Catholic. {{ping|The C of E}}, why are those two charts empty. --[[User:evrik|evrik]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 17:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 :::*{{ping|evrik}} Because the tables were there before I did the expansion. I think I will probably remove them and replace them with a short paragraph summarising the results because I think they are causing more trouble then they are worth. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 20:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
+::::* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] I think this one is good to go with ALT0. The chart problem has been removed, and ALT0 only draws objective attention to an apparently bigoted comment of one candidate, and is not an opinionated hook in itself. The article gives a historical snapshot of the state of the world in 1946, and so does the hook, both being in my opinion part of what Wikipedia stands for. [[User:Storye book|Storye book]] ([[User talk:Storye book|talk]]) 14:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!