@Basetornado: I saw you removed a bunch of content on this article, namely the present statement of Lou Nicholson as an MP (fairly standard when a seat has been called by the ABC, by my knowledge), and a bunch of information on the no jab, no play laws which you called "superfluous" and "border[ing] on promotion". I'm not quite sure why this would border on promotion (as you can see above, I added it at the suggestion of a DYK reviewer), in my mind it's simply an explanation of the proposals Nicholson opposed. What did you think was near-promotional about the content you removed? I think it's helpful clarity for the reader, and not promotional of Nicholson or her political positions. LivelyRatification (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hey I removed the present statement, because she hasn't been elected. The seat has been provisionally called by the ABC. But that does not mean that she has been elected. It's likely, but she would also be the first candidate in Australian history to win a seat from fourth on 1st prefs. It can wait a few days, especially when preferences haven't been officially counted yet. The preferences we are seeing are based on assumptions by ECSA and the ABC. They are usually good assumptions. But they're not fact. They won't do a preference count until tomorrow at the earliest. That's why I removed it. Yes, if the ABC calls it, that can ussually be enough. But when we're looking at something that has never been done before. It's best to wait and see. While still putting the information that is out there. Such as provisionally winning the seat and announced as the winner by the ABC on expected preferences etc.
- I also reworded it, because how it was worded, made it sound like she was in first, then second on first prefs. When in reality, by the time the seat was called by the ABC, she was in fourth. Being in fourth is highly notable.
- I removed the no jab, no play laws, because it was superfluous and overly wordy. At most you just need to add that the laws prohibit unvaccinated children from attending childcare. Adding the years and the 1st and 2nd sections of it is unneccessary, and can come across as promoting an agenda, because it is unnecessary to get the information across. I'm not saying that was your intent. Just that if I come across a page that expands on a controversial topic for seemingly no good reason, beyond the extent that I would normally expect to find. Naturally I am going to feel that there is a reason for that. Hence why it came across as promotional.
- The information about the HTV cards, again too much information. What I changed it too was appropriate. She stated she saw volunteers improperly altering HTV cards and reported it to ECSA. That's not inference either. "She referred to the incidents as "shocking conduct" and said the Electoral Commission was informed." the end of the sentence is clear that she had reported the incident, while the "shocking conduct" quote is unnecessary. The "24 cards" and no preferences beyond the first one etc are also superfluous and poorly written. The footnote that is now there is also unnecessary and just adds the same information I removed for being unnecessary back into the article.
- Overall, the page is okay, just some of the info was too early, and some of it was unnecessary. It didn't mean it was necessarily wrong or false. Just that it wasn't summarised, and felt unnaturally expanded. I only hid the infobox, not deleted it, because I believe she will still likely win the seat. But I did remove the subject categories down the bottom of the page, because it was still too early.
- Basetornado (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Basetornado: I can understand your concern on putting the article in the present tense, but ultimately your own analysis of electoral data is not what Wikipedia operates on. Yes, it is remarkable if she wins from fourth, but no reliable sources have yet remarked on it (probably because she is only barely fourth), and the lack of a formal preference count makes no difference if the seat has already been called by august sources like the ABC. (These aren't reliable sources to be cited directly, but psephologists Antony Green and William Bowe has called Finniss, and Kevin Bonham considers it a likely prospect.) There is no perfect guideline, of course, but when a seat is considered called by reliable sources, we should consider it called as they do, I reckon. We don't usually tend to wait until parliamentary gazettes or swearing-ins.
- In regards to how-to-vote cards, I agree that some of the detail was too granular (twenty-four probably not necessary), but I think what I have added is more helpful to the reader than too detailed. Perhaps this is just me, but any reader familiar with what a how-to-vote card is might wonder how the cards were altered -- were they done so to give an advantage to one party or another? And of course the context here is that the registered how to vote card only filled out one box, and they were said to have been altered to fill out additional boxes. I added the footnote because it is probably too clunky in the mainline of the article, but is still helpful information for the reader on how exactly the cards were modified. Perhaps this is a difference of interpretation, but to me, the line in the article (
She referred to the incidents as "shocking conduct" and said the Electoral Commission was informed.
) does not say that Nicholson referred it to the Electoral Commission. Perhaps that can be inferred, but it is not stated, by my reading it could easily mean that someone else informed the Electoral Commission, not that she did.
- And on the no-jab-no-play stuff I don't agree at all that this was too detailed. You left the article with no explanation on what the laws meant or the effect they had, and the explanation you removed was, in my view, fairly concise. This was the explanation:
South Australia's "no jab, no play" laws were enacted in 2020 in two stages: the first in January mandating proof of vaccination for enrolled students in childcare, and the second in August, preventing childcare providers from enrolling or continuing to enrol a child who was not up to date with their vaccinations.
- Looking at the source, perhaps I could abbreviate it to
South Australia's "no jab, no play" laws, implemented in 2020, prevented childcare providers from enrolling children without up-to-date vaccinations.
, but I think ultimately this is less helpful to the reader. I think it makes sense to explain the two reforms South Australia implemented (given the ABC source says Nicholson "watched parliament debate legislation she felt strongly about
") and it's hardly as if it was put there thoughtlessly. The meaning of "no jab, no play" might not be immediately obvious to the reader, and I think it makes sense to concisely explain the reforms South Australia implemented, which motivated Nicholson to enter politics.
- I don't think you believe that this information was put there in a promotional manner, just that you assumed it might have been, but I really am flummoxed as to how this fairly dry, concise explanation could be read as either "look how terrible these laws are" or "look how awesome these laws are". I think that the explanation I initially wrote is a very reasonable one, explaining the two NJNP laws introduced in South Australia, and I think it should be added back to the article in full. LivelyRatification (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Fourth on 1st prefs. We can afford to wait a day or two. That's all. I don't think we need to wait until she's sworn in etc. Just an actual preference count, because she is again fourth on 1st prefs, and that makes it a more complicated count.
- The HTV cards feels too detailed. You can just say "improperly altering their own HTV cards after they were approved by ECSA". If you don't want to say that she reported it to the electoral commission, than it doesn't bother me. I just feel that it's not really something inferred.
- Explaining two different stages of the law, when it really should just be a passing mention, comes across as promotional, because why are you doing it? Does it add anything to the page that "South Australia's "no jab, no play" laws, implemented in 2020, prevented childcare providers from enrolling children without up-to-date vaccinations" doesn't? Does anyone need to know the two different stages to understand it? There is already a page for those laws. That would be the perfect place for that information. It's a controversial topic. We need to more careful with controversial topics. That's all. Basetornado (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Basetornado: I have updated the article to refer to Nicholson in present tense as an MP -- the ABC call stands, and the ECSA's two-candidate-preferred count has progressed to indicate a lead for Nicholson with almost all booths reporting. I have removed the footnoted explanation on the HTV cards while keeping the ambiguous "
adding that the issue was reported to the Electoral Commission
" phrasing. I have added the brief explanation of the NJNP laws. I think that this will be agreeable to the both of us, and I appreciate all the time you have spent detailing your thoughts and concerns here. LivelyRatification (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Works for me, no issues. Basetornado (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
Article was moved to mainspace on 24 March and is long enough at 2700 characters. I didn't find any issues with sourcing, neutrality or copyright. The hook is interesting and verified, although I'd suggest adding a sentence explaining the meaning of "no jab, no play" laws to the bolded article so that readers who click on it based on the hook don't need to click away onto another article to understand it. But looks good to me, and nice job on all these SA politician articles! MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)