Talk:Muchipara Assembly constituency

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith talk 21:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in the 1952 West Bengal assembly election the Muchipara seat was won by a margin of just nine votes?

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140404203741/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_1951/STATISTICALREPORTS_51_WestBengal.pdf

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1963 Mississippi House of Representatives special election in Lauderdale County

Moved to mainspace by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 429 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Great work! For ease of other reviewers; the hook comes from page 178 of the source (and doing the calculation to come up with the margin of victory from the vote totals clearly falls under the WP:CALC exception to NOR). From revision 1285445119, I spotchecked refs 1 (in both uses of the citation) and 3; both supported the statement made and were not copyvios. Earwig comes up spotless. While not a problem, note that the source used for the hook in the article (ref 5) is different from the source used in this DYK. Ref 5 is not available gratis on the net, so I AGF that it supports the statement. Approved ALT0, and thank you for your work countering systemic bias on WP :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]