Jump to content

Talk:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2010 Oklahoma State Question 755 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 15, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the U.S. state of Oklahoma was not allowed to ban Sharia law?

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Elli (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 20 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Elli (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I personally think the first hook is great. It certainly got my attention. The article itself is long, was moved to the mainspace just today, is based on reliable sources, and looks fully complete. My only potential concern is that the hook doesn't explicitly state that it was struck down in court, but I think that can probably be inferred as is. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though Earwig found likely copyvio, it's basing that off of a direct quote from the contents of the proposal, an open and free document that is properly attributed to, so it shouldn't be a violation. I think this is all in order. Still, felt it should be mentioned in case the author wants to paraphrase the contents of the proposal or if an administrator takes issue with it. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah as the author I generally don't think quoting the direct ballot title of the proposal is a problem (and imo paraphrasing would be less informative to our readers than seeing what voters saw). Elli (talk | contribs) 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2024 (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:2010 Oklahoma State Question 755/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Elli (talk · contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Looks interesting! It's a very brief article, so I should have a full review up shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli, here's the review. The main issue here is just that there isn't enough; what's already there is pretty much good to go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'll get to expanding soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, just a quick check-in since it's been about a week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: sorry about the delay; my personal life has gotten quite busy so I haven't had much time to dig in and work on this more. I should have more time this week if that's alright. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli I'm in no rush, but any update on the timeframe? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have more time tomorrow. For real this time :) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, the review has been open for a little over a month, and it looks like there are still some areas that need attention. Do you think it will be ready to promote soon? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: honestly, not sure. I've addressed many of the issues you raised, but I agree that the article isn't nearly as broad as it should be and I've been having trouble finding the motivation to work on it. So if you'd like to close the review I won't be upset as I've taken far too long on this. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing now. I hope to see this renominated soon! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Nothing in the first sentence here is actually supported by the body: "State Question 755", "Save Our State Amendment", "legislatively-referred", "on November 2, 2010", and "alongside the 2010 Oklahoma elections" are all unique to the lead without any mention or source in the body.

Background:

  • The amendment was introduced – Since this is the first paragraph of the body, it shouldn't refer to anything previously mentioned. There are a few ways this could be reworded, but the first mention of the amendment/measure should introduce it.
  • This section would be a good place to describe when and how it got its name. Something like "the measure was added to the ballot as State Question 755". Maybe something about when/how it took the name "Save Our State Amendment" as well.
  • Was there any political activity or debate about Sharia or international law specific to Oklahoma before it was put on the ballot, or was it just the New Jersey incident?
  • The second sentence has two clauses in a row that start with "with".

Contents:

Support and opposition:

  • The amendment was supported by most legislators, with only ten in the House and two in the Senate voting against the measure – Is there a party breakdown on this? Where Republicans and Democrats fell would be helpful information.
  • I suggest a descriptor for ACT for America, otherwise the reader doesn't know what kind of organization it is unless they click the link.
  • Islamic groups also opposed the measure – Who is "Islamic groups"? Right now only a guy from the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City is mentioned.

Polling:

  • This feels like it could be part of the support and opposition section, or at least a subsection, instead of its own very short stand-alone section.
  • Maybe this use warrants an exception, but it's best to avoid external links in the body. The polls can be formatted as references.

Results:

  • Is there no other information about voter demographics or turnout?
  • Maybe this section could also say the date it was voted on and that it was in conjunction with the elections.

Aftermath:

  • "Clearly" sounds like editorializing unless it's specifically part of the legal finding. I suggest taking an exact quote of "abundantly clear".
  • Any information about why the Senate had so little interest relative to the House?

Spot checks:

  • Schlachtenhaufen (2010) – Good.
  • Banda (2011) – The amendment was part of a nationwide movement against Sharia law, following a case in New Jersey is contradicted by ACLU's Daniel Mach said Oklahoma is the only state to specifically target Sharia, as well as international law.
  • Weigel (2011) – Good.
  • Toensing (2018) – Good.
  • Reilly (2013) – Good.

Broad coverage:

  • Looking through the sources, it seems that a lot of additional information is still there. The article doesn't have to be comprehensive, but I personally advocate WP:SOURCEMINEing. It's not like there's a risk of the article getting too long with lots of details.
  • I don't see any sort of scholarly analysis or legal commentary. A Google Scholar search says that it definitely exists. Again, I'm not going to ask that all of it be added (though that would be great), but at least a basic overview of legal/scholarly analysis is necessary for GA.
  • Was there any campaigning for or against the amendment, besides Gabriel's speeches?
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Oklahoma_State_Question_755&oldid=1246338035"