Talk:2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election

Referring to Richmond
I added a sentence, "The Richmond Park by-election was held one week before and saw the Liberal Democrats win the seat from the Conservatives on a substantial swing." It seemed important context for this by-election and is something the recent reporting on this by-election mentions. That's been changed to "... win the seat from Zac Goldsmith..." on the grounds that the Conservatives weren't (officially) standing and Zac stood as an independent. I feel that makes it harder for the reader to understand the sentence, its relevance. As I see it, the seat was Conservative: it is now LibDem -- it counts as a LibDem gain from Conservative (and is marked as so in the List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) article), so I think that's acceptable shorthand. But I understand the concern. Anyone want to suggest some other wording? Bondegezou (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "The Richmond Park by-election, held one week before, saw the Liberal Democrats win the seat from former Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith on a substantial swing"? Do you think that gives enough context? Warofdreams talk 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Informal peer review from Harry
Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this. — Hope this helps. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is her profession as a paediatrician relevant? Nobody else seems to have their pre-politics occupation mentioned.
 * Nevertheless, the party's absolute majority (measured in number of votes) is this noteworthy? I thought it was fairly common for by-elections to have lower turnout than general elections, which would likely reduce the number of votes for any particular candidate/party?
 * Ten candidates stood in the by-election; the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) came second Suggest a full stop instead of a semicolon; the two clauses are not part of a whole.
 * many MPs and analysts felt this was because of Labour's stance on Brexit—an attempt to appeal to voters on both sides of the debate. You might need to elaborate very slightly on what that stance was.
 * Why are we using 2019 statistics in an article about a 2016 election?
 * You should pare back your use of semicolons; 32 in just over 2,000 words of prose is a little excessive and they can hamper readability and make the prose choppy.
 * Caption For Paul Nuttall should explain his relevance, since he wasn't one of the candidates
 * willingness to trigger [A]rticle 50 despite For readability, I would suggest either rendering the quote as it appeared, or capitalising the "A" without the brackets. Minor typographical corrections are allowed in quotes.
 * Likewise "[p]eople here voted for Brexit
 * Is there anything more to say about the LibDem campaign other that Tim Farron visited? It seems odd to mention that but nothing else. Or any of the independents/minor parties?
 *  in an opinion piece on December 4, the journalist Andrew Rawnsley Tell us which publication he was writing for. It gives the reader some sense of his political leanings.
 * what was interesting is almost always redundant and can be easily eliminated
 * When was the the date of the by-election announced?
 * Is there anything to say about Johnson's political career? Issues she raised in parliament, anything she's done in the constituency, her relationship with the party, opinions on government policy, etc? A couple of sentences on that would tie the article up nicely.