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.
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and Onegreatjoke: just noting here that the reason this hasn't been promoted is both the hooks are rather uninteresting. Any chance that something "hookier" could be found? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that, unless you're a political science or Canadian politics buff, neither hook really stands out as hooky or catchy. If no other hooks are possible then regrettably this nomination may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I have found in discussions with American friends that they are interested in the differences between Canadian and American political and constitutional systems and often find references to the role of the monarch in the Canadian system to be of interest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think you could have come up with a more patronising and dismissive insult than "Canadian politics buff" if you had tried. You've made it clear that DYK is no place for quirks of Canadian politics. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not that. I'm a big politics buff myself! It's really just, like what Airship said, the hooks just aren't that interesting, and in my case I'm adding that they're probably only interesting to people with an interest or familiarity with Canadian politics. This is not to say that we can't feature Canadian politics on DYK. Far from it! But hooks do need to meet the guidelines, including the one on specialist knowledge, and both hooks unfortunately fail that particular criterion in my eyes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I noticed that "Section 54 has not been amended since the Act was enacted in 1867." isn't cited. Could that be cited? Because I think that Leeky's suggestion works as a hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
To copy his talk page message "Hi Onegreatjoke, the cite is already there. It takes you to s. 54 in the annotated consolidation by the federal Department of Justice, and there are no footnotes to s. 54; that means it's not been amended. Compare to other sections like s. 51, which have footnotes showing the amendments. The absence of a footnote in the annotated consolidation is proof that there's not been an amendment. In my view, that annotated consolidation is a secondary source." Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and Onegreatjoke: just noting here that the reason this hasn't been promoted is both the hooks are rather uninteresting. Any chance that something "hookier" could be found? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
To copy his talk page message "Hi Onegreatjoke, the cite is already there. It takes you to s. 54 in the annotated consolidation by the federal Department of Justice, and there are no footnotes to s. 54; that means it's not been amended. Compare to other sections like s. 51, which have footnotes showing the amendments. The absence of a footnote in the annotated consolidation is proof that there's not been an amendment. In my view, that annotated consolidation is a secondary source." Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)