Template:Did you know nominations/Slovenian railway referendum, 2017

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 Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Slovenian railway referendum, 2017 edit

(

)

... that Slovenian voters supported the law governing a Divača-Koper railway link upgrade in a referendum, but the turnout was low? Source: RTVSLO.si (in Slovene)

Reviewed: Cynthia Clarey

Created by Tone (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

Article is new, long enough, and meets policy on neutrality, citations, and plagiarism. The content is interesting, but this interest is not reflected in the rather dull hook. The mere use of a national referendum on something mundane like a railway upgrade is worth a hook by itself, so I'd like to see a different one. QPQ has been completed. Sounder Bruce 00:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Sorry, that took me a while. What about: ALT1... that despite both sides participating in the Slovenian railway referendum agreed that the Divača-Koper railway link upgrade is needed, opinions differed on how to construct it? Tone 07:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's kind of dull and uninteresting. I'll recuse myself from reviewing and offer this suggestion:

ALT2 ...that only 20.5 percent of Slovenian voters turned in ballots for a railway referendum?

Sounder Bruce 00:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole referendum thing was kind of dull and uninteresting :P But sure, the suggested hook looks fine. I'd add only 20.5 percent. Tone 05:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In that case, how about:

ALT3 ... that this hook is as boring as the 2017 railway referendum was to four out of five Slovenians eligible to vote?

— Kpalion^(talk) 09:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

:D (though I'm afraid it would not pass the verifiability part ... It would likely not even work for April's Fools when the hooks are more light-hearted.) Tone 12:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

alt2 sounds interesting enough, the article does say 20.55%. However that figure is not in the supplied reference. So can someone find a reference for that or the total number of voters? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: I updated the reference, the previous one was for preliminary results. These are the final ones. Tone 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  - OK that reference confirms alt2 and given earlier assessments I will say this good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that a September 2017 Slovenian railway referendum was passed into law after clearing the minimum registered voter threshold by half of one percent? Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, no, this is not the case here. People who set the referendum in motion wanted to repeal the law, which would require them to get both (i) the majority of voters voting no, and (ii) more than 20% of the eligible voters showing up and voting "no". Neither of which happened - the total turnout was just over 20% and the majority voted "yes", meaning that the law was not repealed. Alt2 is fine. Tone 08:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Restoring tick for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)