Talk:Food Act 1984
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bruxton in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Food Act 1984 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |  |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in November 2022 Leicester City Council used the Food Act 1984 in combination with a royal charter of 1199 to levy a charge on the organisers of two Christmas light switching-on events? Source: "A row has broken out after a city council used a centuries-old charter to charge organisers £64 to hold festive events in nearby towns ... The council has drawn on a charter - granted by King John in 1199 - which says they are "rival markets" due to their proximity to Leicester Market ... The city council has used legislation granted to the authority by the Royal Markets Charter - later signed by Queen Elizabeth I in 1589 - and by the Local Food Act 1984 to make the request." from: "Leicester council branded 'Scrooges' over £64 Christmas market fee". BBC News. 18 November 2022. Retrieved 21 December 2022. [Note: The BBC incorrectly states "Local" Food Act 1984. There is no such legislation and the Food Act 1984 regulates markets, for which the charge was made]
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC).
New, long, properly written (Earwig suggests a plagiarism issue, but this refers to two small portions of the text which use standard legalese); interesting hook, verified by source and present in the article; QPQ done. This is good to go. Dahn (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
