Talk:April 1865 Bruce by-election

B class criteria
, regarding your query on my talk page ("What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class?"), I've added a B-class checklist to the WPNZ template above. The only area that needs work is coverage of the topic; this is how I see it:
 * 'Background' is fine
 * 'Overview' is where most work is needed. At the moment, it's really just about the nomination meeting. When did print media start reporting on possible candidates? When did the various candidates put their names forward? What candidate meetings were held, and when? Did candidates other than Clapcott pull out of the competition?
 * 'Candidates' is fine, but once we've done the above, this would come earlier.
 * 'Election' could be expanded.
 * We ought to have a section that covers what happened after the by-election.

But if you want to put more work in, why stop there? Why not go for GA? The difference isn't massive. Nice supporting material, which would not be needed for B class and isn't essential for GA either, would be a map showing the electorate in 1865 that also identifies the polling booths. And as an aside, we should give Clapcott his own article. What do you think? I'm certainly keen to chip in.  Schwede 66  02:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of first getting the article to B-class to make way for GA. Thanks for the advice!  J 947  08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a source which you could expand the article with.  J 947  05:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think the info about the public meeting that happened during the run-up for the election should be included in the article? I recently put some of it in per WP:BOLD.  J 947  08:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per what I said above about 'Overview'. Anything that happened in regards to the by-election is within the scope of this article. I hope to have time later today to read some contemporary newspaper to find out what else happened.  Schwede 66  23:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The meeting wasn't directly in regards to the by-election; it was just a coincidence that the meeting happened during the by-election campaign.  J 947  00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You will have seen that I'm doing some work on this, if ever so slowly. I'll work through it chronologically and when I get to the meeting, I'll do what needs doing.  Schwede 66  06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Progress:
 * Background: ✔️.
 * Run up to the election: ✅.
 * Nomination meeting: ✅.
 * Public meeting: Not needed.
 * Candidates: ✔️.
 * Election: ✅.
 * Results by polling booth: ✅.
 * Aftermath: ✅.
 * July 1865 by-election: ✅.
 * 1866 election: ✅.
 *  J 947  03:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Updated 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC).  Updated again 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt the 'Public meeting' section would be needed for B-class.  J 947  03:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , do you think the article's ready for B-class? The prose size is 9,659 bytes, compared with 9,274, 5,967, 9,466, and 4,540 bytes. The total byte count is 20,220 bytes, compared with 18,995, 17,338, 21,173, and 13,473 bytes.  J 947  19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good examples of by-election articles:
 * Town of Christchurch by-election, 1860
 * Hokitika by-election, 1878
 * City of Christchurch by-election, 1896
 * City of Christchurch by-election, 1901 (note the campaign meeting table)

Hope this helps.  Schwede 66  03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at those articles.  J 947  08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Had a look.  J 947  19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

, thank you for your thorough and constructive GA review. That's much appreciated. And congratulations to J947 for getting your first article to GA class. Well done. What's next?  Schwede 66  17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, very belated, must of not noticed on my watchlist. I've been inactive for a while and decided to return to content creation. Anyways I've got a lot of options:
 * This time and era. I seem to be quite interested about it (1859 Town of Dunedin by-election)
 * First parliament by-elections. There are three of them, and all three I've expanded. Three C's would be nice.
 * 1874 Waitemata by-elections or 1901 Patea by-elections. Both very interesting to me.
 * 1860 Suburbs of Auckland by-elections: Splittable, and also Joseph Hargreaves (politician) (less than 4 months as MP).
 * A biography. Probably one I've dabbled upon before or a DNZB go-through.
 * I'm not sure which one to do right now, but I'll probably try and get around all of them and get them to C or more. I'd appreciate your opinion on which one to do at the moment.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, mate. It's been a year! Well, that's a steep questions; really depends on your interests. I find it interesting to work on an election article at the same time as on a related bio, so maybe go for the 1860 Suburbs of Auckland by-elections / Joseph Hargreaves combo. I agree that splitting those by-election articles is the (ultimate) way to go.  Schwede 66  09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll do that. Probably gonna start work on it around mid-March.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit notice?
Maybe we should add an edit notice to this page explaining about the use of 'Tokomairiro' instead of 'Milton' or 'Tokomairaro; as that's what is being used all over the page except for the explanation in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' section.  J 947  20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go for it.  Schwede 66  02:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that can only be done by admins.  J 947  02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in that case, I didn't understand what you had in mind. Can you point me to the right policy, please? But why wouldn't we just explain the situation in prose?  Schwede 66  02:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME it appears that at that time (at least by the newspapers) the wording 'Tokomairiro' was more common than 'Tokomairaro', and I don't see why we should call it 'Milton' when at the time it wasn't called that. We already have in the first paragraph of the 'Nomination meeting' sub-section.  J 947  03:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I mean about "edit notice".  Schwede 66  04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:EDN.  J 947  05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've certainly not been on that page before.  Schwede 66  07:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming after 9 days.  J 947  16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really aren't sure that it's needed. But if you want to draft such a notice, I shall put it up (if only to try out something new). And by the way, I will expand this article further, but got sidetracked.  Schwede 66  19:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done at my alternative sandbox.  J 947  02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Had it on my watchlist. Lets hope for a GA! :).  J 947  03:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drafting the editnotice. It's now in place.  Schwede 66  08:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. Can you please add the word 'section' after the ' 'Nomination meeting' ' text?  J 947  19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Dyer
The Dyer contesting this election may not have been the same as William John Dyer, as this source from The Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle states that the first two initials in Dyer's name were J. C.      Mentioning.  J 947  20:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. Nah, the paper has got it wrong. They are talking about "J. C. Dyer, M.P.C.", where the abbreviation stands for Member of the Provincial Council. And the Otago Province has, over its history, had one member with the surname Dyer: William John Dyer (Scholefield, 1950, p. 220). At the time, Nelson was half a world away from Otago, as a telegraphic connection hadn't been made the length of the South Island by that time. After all, they reported on the nomination meeting a fortnight after it was held. They simply got it wrong.  Schwede 66  07:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)