Template:Did you know nominations/Philadelphia municipal election, 1953

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Philadelphia municipal election, 1953[edit]

(
)

Created by Coemgenus (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC).

 • No issues found with article, ready for human review.

    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 23:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 9659 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (0.0% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.

 • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Might this be a possible hook to run on U.S. Election Day, next Tuesday, November 8? Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! --Coemgenus (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Anything related to real or imagined irregularities in US elections, past or present, needs to wait until after the current election. EEng 07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an irregularity. The guy died before the primary but not in time to have him removed from the ballot. It happens. But whatever, I'm not looking to make a larger point, just to get a DYK processed. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't imagine you were trying to make a point, but there are plenty of nuts out there now who will read only the hook, ignore the innocent facts, and try to make something if it. Anyway, under the normal DYK review schedule, you'll be lucky to get this through before the next US presidential election, so I'm not sure why I was worried in the first place. EEng 15:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - This means Vogt? No. Though it's quite interesting as phrased, it isn't actually true. The Democrats did not nominate a dead man for a defunct office, he was alive and the office was valid when they nominated him; neither was he the Dem nominee when the election was held. In related issues, the sentence "For coroner the story was similar." strongly implies that nominee also died shortly after being nominated, if you don't meant that, please rephrase.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Side comment: What is the order sources are listed in? I see Miller 1953 c, then b, then a, then d? As a general note, nicely written article. I can't see any of the refs, but am assuming good faith. All the above issues are nitpicks and quite fixable (though I'm sorry I can't suggest a better interesting hook), please ping me when this is done, and would love to approve. GRuban (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@GRuban: OK, I've changed the "political machine" lines. Wasn't meant to be derogatory, just wanted to use a different phrase than "party organization." The sources are in the order they were published. I rephrased the sentence you found ambiguous. As to the hook: the nomination takes effect when someone wins the primary, so Vogt was nominated after he died. As to the office being defunct, there was obviously a difference of opinion, so maybe we could change it to "... that in the 1953 Philadelphia municipal election, Democrats nominated a dead man for an office that was abolished before the election?" --Coemgenus (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah. OK, I'll buy that, accepting. However, how about changing the relevant sentence to "The Democrats nominated Joseph F. Vogt without opposition though he died a month before the primary."? "Dems did A but B happened", at least to me, implies B happened after A. The next sentence says September ... what was the date of the primary?
Not a blocker, but going down Sources section, publication dates: May, September, October 53, January 53, January 54, November 53, May 53 ... ? --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@GRuban: That change is fine with me. The order of the sources is alphabetical by author where there is an author, and by title where there isn't. Maybe I should reorganize it.... --Coemgenus (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do make the change, and yes, you should reorder; alphabetising on title sometimes and author sometimes is not right. Also, I notice 2 entries from Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov 1, 1953, same page, same title, different authors... that happen to have the same first name and middle initial. Really? --GRuban (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, actually, that's accurate! Both named William J. ______. The two op-ed pieces ran side-by-side that day. You should be able to view it here. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Philadelphia_municipal_election,_1953&oldid=1037983901"