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) 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Gibraltar

• ... that the English Law (Application) Act 1962‎ affirms English law in Gibraltar (arms pictured) and made seduction legal? Source: Gibraltar Government
  • ALT1:... that the English Law (Application) Act 1962‎ from Gibraltar (arms pictured) was used as a basis for Hong Kong adopting English law? Source: The Sources of Hong Kong Law. Hong Kong University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9622093639.

• Reviewed: Gerberian Shepsky
• Comment: I'm happy to cut down the original so it's just about seduction

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• The article passes the tests, but I have had to correct the “Repeals” section, which was mixing up criminal and civil law - see Appendix 3 of the Act. And neither of the hooks is correct. On the main hook, about seduction, whether it was to be lawful or not isn’t the issue dealt with, it was about whether it was to be a cause of action at civil law, viz., whether someone could get damages from someone else as a result of it. On Alt1, Gibraltar wasn’t adopting English law, it had been using it since the 18th century. We just need a hook that is spot on. Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moonraker: Alt1 isn't about Gibraltar adopting English law, its about Hong Kong using it as the basis for their equivilant law. We can always amend the original to:

• ALT2 ... that the English Law (Application) Act 1962‎ stopped people from suing for seduction in Gibraltar (arms pictured)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The C of E, point taken, but the same is true of Hong Kong, neither was adopting English law, what was surely going on was that their own separate legal systems were being launched, based on the English law they had been using for generations. Yes, Alt2 looks okay at first sight. I’ll look back later today. Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• On looking more closely, Alt2 suffers from paraphrasing and isn’t quite right. People weren’t necessarily stopped from starting a civil action based on seduction, they just couldn’t win it and get damages. When dealing with the law, it is really best not to change the words. If I were you, I’d quote something from one of the reliable sources and then use that for a hook. Moonraker (talk)
  • ALT3... that the English Law (Application) Act 1962‎ ended legal recognition of seduction as a civil offence in Gibraltar (Arms pictured)? @Moonraker:, how's that? Because it's what the source says. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• for ALT3. The article is new enough and long enough, well cited and neutral, and no significant copyvio was found. The Alt3 hook fact is cited inline and a QPQ has been done. The licence of the coat of arms seems to miss the point that the use of coats of arms is specifically protected in English law, but perhaps US law is more relevant here, and if so the image may well pass muster. Subject to that, ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]