Template:Did you know nominations/3rd Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia

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 SL93 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

3rd Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Parliamentarians exchange shouts in the hemicycle of the Legislative Assembly

• ... that the 3rd Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia has suspended multiple sessions due to open brawls and fights between opposition and ruling party parliamentarians? Source: Página Siete
  • Reviewed: Previously nominated fewer than five articles.

Improved to Good Article status by Krisgabwoosh (talk). Self-nominated at 02:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

• The title of article must be in bold.
  • Fixed.
    • Passing the nomination
• SpaceEconomist192, regrettably, you are not eligible to review this DYK, since you also reviewed the GA nomination. Per WP:DYKSG#H2, You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). So I'm going to be putting this back to be fully reviewed by someone else. Krisgabwoosh, this is a courtesy ping to let you know that a new review will be taking place, and also to let you know that you should not remove anything from this page in future edits. (You had removed the DYK checklist template when responding to the review earlier, which should not have been done.) Thanks to you both.

Full review needed by independent reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. The review was left unsigned so I was not aware this had occurred. I'll await a second opinion then. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• New enough GA. QPQ exempt. Hook source checks out, but I cannot find it in the article itself. This is an astoundingly high quality article on what looks by all accounts to be a very contentious legislature. One style note for Krisgabwoosh: dashes should not be spaced —like this— with spacing on the "outer" side only. If you use emdashes, no space; if you use endashes, one space each side. See MOS:DASH. I need the hook source in the article somewhere, but that is a formality before this page is approved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Sammi Brie: The hook source is a summary of most of the 2021 events in the legislature, so it doesn't appear in the article itself. Alternatively, these three separate citations all appear in the article, covering individual and separate events. Also thanks for the note on em dashes! I wasn't aware and will fix the error on other articles I've worked on. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's understandable. The volume of sources definitely makes up for it and checks out. There's a script that might be helpful in fixing dash errors, by the way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

References