Jump to content

Talk:2009 Maine Question 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maine Question 1, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maine Question 1, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Maine Question 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS, Sorry for the ping I just want to know if you are making any progress. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I try to avoid taking this long on reviews (and I apologize for doing so) though my recent move back to school and the beginning of classes have impacted my productivity on Wikipedia; I will do my best to get to this soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke, I appreciate your patience very much. I have added comments below and the nomination is on hold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS, Thank you for the review! I have addressed all of the comments and I ask for you to review them to see if they are correct. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good! Some formatting issues remain with references but that's not a GA requirement so I'm happy to give this a pass, well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • "The measure passed 53%–47% on November 3, 2009" → should be "53–47%" per MOS:PERCENT
  • Done.
  • "was reversed by Maine voters three years later when voters approved" → repetition (emphasis mine)
  • Reworded

Legislation

[edit]
  • "On April 30, 2009, the Senate rejected an amendment" → link Maine Senate
  • Done
  • "and on the following day, Gov. John Baldacci" → since there's no need to conserve space here, you can expand to the full "Governor"
  • Done
  • On a more broad note, a section titled "legislation" would lead me to believe that there is more detailed information about the bill itself, so perhaps something to that effect could be added (although I recognize that the issue of the bill is relatively straightforward in concept)
  • Expanded the topic

Ballot question efforts

[edit]
  • "September 2, 2009, the Secretary of State of Maine verified" → since Maine is the only state being discussed you could probably pipe the link to just display "secretary of state" (in lowercase, as well, since the name of the individual is not mentioned, and probably doesn't need to be in this case)
  • Done
  • "verified that the opponents had submitted" → while the context and a couple readings make this clear, I would state explicitly that "opponents" here refers to the opponents of the original bill itself, and not the opponents of the veto effort, who are noted as "[opposing] the veto" in the sentence prior

Polling

[edit]
  • Dates should be in mdy (month day, year) format since this article deals with the United States
  • Done
  • Done

Results

[edit]
  • The prose in this section is nearly identical to that used in the "Polling" section; is there anything different that could be said either here or there, other than a repetition of the ballot question and the "Yes" and "No" votes?

Post-election

[edit]
  • "attempts to force the National Organization for Marriage" → change to past tense
  • Done
  • Do the individuals on the donors list have any individual significance? It's a good thing to have on the page but knowing that Sean Fieler donated a million and a quarter dollars to this campaign without knowing who he is in the first place is not as helpful as it may seem to the ordinary reader. Same goes for Caster, Kurtz, and Brown (especially, given he donated several orders of magnitude less than the others)
  • Deleted the donors list
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Onegreatjoke (talk). Self-nominated at 22:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Funny that this is your first nomination, because this is my second review. We're both newbies here! This also means that my review probably warrants a second opinion. Anyway, this looks good. It has been newly made a Good Article, its long enough, I've verified the source, and its interesting. You are also correct, since this is your first DYK nomination, you are not obligated to do any QPQ. I can detect no problems with this nomination, and I hope to see it pass. I think either of the proposals would be good, but I think the second one would be better, as it makes it clear the the reader the scope of election. RoundSquare (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Maine_Question_1&oldid=1196546687"